Oral
Answers to
Questions

Health and Social Care

The Secretary of State was asked—

Access to NHS Dentistry

Chris Loder: What steps he is taking to improve access to NHS dentistry services in the south-west.

Selaine Saxby: What progress he has made on increasing the availability of NHS dentistry services.

Steve Barclay: During the pandemic, we took unprecedented action to protect NHS dentistry capacity, providing over £1.7 billion of income protection. We also ensured that those who needed it most could access the available care by establishing 700 urgent care centres nationwide. NHS dentists are now returning to 100% of their contracted activity.

Chris Loder: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but in West Dorset we are really struggling with dentist availability; at the moment there is no capacity for new patients, and the NHS appears to be incapable of solving the issue. Could my right hon. Friend tell me what he is doing to help restore dental services in West Dorset for those who need them?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend raises a very pertinent point. I recognise that there are significant challenges in NHS dentistry, including disparities across regions. Improving access for patients is a priority, and that is why just today the Government, together with NHS England, have announced a package of improvements to the NHS dental system, on which we have worked closely with the sector and the British Dental Association.

Selaine Saxby: Having seen the former Minister for dentistry on numerous occasions, we were assured of today’s announcement to tackle the appalling lack of dentists in dental deserts such as my North Devon constituency. Can my right hon. Friend explain how the measures in today’s written ministerial statement will rapidly deliver extra dental appointments?

Steve Barclay: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s campaigning on this issue; it is something she has highlighted on a number of occasions. The sorts of areas where the measures announced today will help include the management of NHS dental contracts, increasing the use of the skills mix in the dental workforce, and rewarding complex treatment to better reflect the complexity of that work.

Luke Pollard: There are 18,000 people on the NHS waiting list for dentistry in Plymouth; it is a real crisis. As a city, we have a cross-party plan for the new Cavell centre, a west end health hub as part of a health village in the city centre, with extra dental capacity with our brilliant dental school. However, we urgently need the Government to unlock the funding for it. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet a cross-party delegation from Plymouth to make the case for that, so that we can get on, get spades in the ground and get people’s teeth healed?

Steve Barclay: As part of the Government’s wider commitment to levelling up, we are very interesting in taking a place-based approach. Indeed, the essence of the integrated care boards is to help facilitate that. I am very happy to have discussions with colleagues across the House on how we best deliver that.

Tim Farron: We all know that NHS dentistry was in crisis long before the pandemic. In my community, only a third of adults have seen an NHS dentist in the last two years, and fewer than half of children have seen a dentist in the last 12 months. It is obvious why: we have an ageing system—units of dental activity—based on a snapshot taken 15 years ago, which is completely unfit for purpose, as dentists and patients around the country are telling the Government. Will the Secretary of State listen to dentists and patients and reform the system urgently?

Steve Barclay: I hope the hon. Gentleman will look at today’s announcement, because it shows that the Department has listened. That is why, for example, it will facilitate better contract management, better reflect the floor price for units of dental activity and reward complex treatment, which was one of the key concerns. Equally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that this Government, through the £1.7 billion of income protection during the pandemic, have done much to facilitate dentistry’s ability to bounce back.

Net Zero

Robbie Moore: What steps his Department is taking to help the NHS achieve net zero.

Maria Caulfield: We are committed to supporting the NHS to achieve net zero by 2040 for direct emissions, with the Government already investing £280 million through the public sector decarbonisation scheme to support that ambition.

Robbie Moore: The NHS plays a key role in our national attempts to achieve net zero. I was therefore delighted to see the Airedale NHS Foundation Trust  submit its plans for a new Airedale Hospital in my constituency. Those plans of course deal with the severe structural risk associated with aerated concrete, but they are also designed to create Europe’s first ever carbon neutral hospital. Does my hon. Friend agree that these are extremely exciting plans and that they are another reason why we should try to achieve a new Airedale Hospital in my constituency?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend, who campaigns hard on this issue for Airedale Hospital. I absolutely understand the urgency around aerated concrete given the effect it is having, and of course I agree that the NHS has a vital role in supporting net zero. He will understand that I cannot commit to any one application. We are reviewing all applications and we aim to make a final decision later this year.

Jim Shannon: Can the Minister assure me, and the House, that the money used for the purpose of achieving a net zero NHS will have no impact on, for instance, those who are on waiting lists for cataract operations, who cannot even see the environment because they have been waiting for their operations for so many years? Net zero is very important, but what is more important is getting those operations done.

Maria Caulfield: I think we can do both. We have already reduced emissions in the NHS by 30%, and there are a number of ways in which we can reduce them further, from changes in procurement—the NHS will no longer purchase from suppliers that are not aligned with net zero ambitions—to the delivery of estate change.

Breastmilk Substitutes: International Code of Marketing

Alison Thewliss: If his Department will take steps to fully implement the international code of marketing of breastmilk substitutes.

Maggie Throup: The Government recognise that the code is intended to promote breastfeeding. Existing legislation in the UK implements its general principles, giving effect to its aim of covering marketing, accounting, information and the responsibilities of health authorities. As well as restricting advertising to scientific and specialist babycare publications, it sets requirements for labelling, presentation and advertising so as not to discourage breastfeeding. Guidance on working within the code is available to service commissioners, providers and practitioners.

Alison Thewliss: As the World Health Organisation’s recent status report on implementation of the code gives the UK a mark of only 40 out of a possible 100, the UK could clearly be doing a great deal more to implement a code that was intended to protect breastfeeding, and to protect those who are bottle-feeding from marketing influence. Will the Minister meet me and the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities to discuss the issue further?

Maggie Throup: I commend the hon. Lady for the work that she does through her all-party parliamentary group. The Government recognise the importance of these issues, which is why we recently committed £50 million to improve breastfeeding support in 75 local authorities. I should be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and the APPG.

Mileage Expenses Reimbursement: NHS Community Care Staff

Rosie Cooper: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the rate of reimbursement for mileage expenses for NHS community care staff.

Steve Barclay: The reimbursement of travel costs for NHS staff is covered by the NHS terms and conditions, which are agreed jointly by employers and NHS trade unions. The terms and conditions set out the process for reviewing the rate, and that process includes reviewing fluctuations in fuel prices.

Rosie Cooper: Motorists across the country have seen the cost of fuel increase by as much as 60p per litre since this time last year. Fuel costs are penalising the many NHS staff who treat patients in the community for simply doing their job. The current reimbursement rate of 56p per mile drops to 20p after staff have travelled 3,500 miles, and that has not been adjusted since 2014. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the rate of reimbursement does not rise in line with prices at the pump, those staff can easily obtain jobs in the acute sector, where they will not face the extra fuel costs? Given that we want more people to be treated in the community, that would surely be a catastrophe both for staff and for patients at home.

Steve Barclay: This is an important issue, and it affects different parts of the workforce in different ways. The 56p is higher than the rate approved by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and, as the hon. Lady said, it drops to 20p after 3,500 miles have been travelled. Of course, the Government are taking other measures more widely in their fiscal response to the cost of living, such as cutting fuel duty, but there is a review mechanism in respect of the NHS specifically, which involves looking at these issues in the round.

Covid-19 Vaccine Uptake

Meg Hillier: What steps he is taking to encourage covid-19 vaccine uptake in adults.

Maggie Throup: Vaccines continue to be the best line of defence against covid-19, and about 94% of those aged over 12 in England have come forward for their first dose. We are continuing to make vaccinations as accessible and convenient as possible, with thousands of sites operational, including targeted mobile vaccination clinics. Throughout the roll-out, we have monitored data and shared it with local NHS systems to support tailored interventions and outreach.  That includes providing bespoke messages from the trusted community and faith leaders who know their communities best.

Meg Hillier: As the Public Accounts Committee reported last week, there are still 3 million people who have not been vaccinated, and we hope that the Government will give as much support as they can to increase the take-up among that group. However, I am particularly concerned about people with black, black British and Pakistani backgrounds, who are far less likely to have had their first booster. There is a real inequality issue here. Can the Minister give us any further indication of how she will ensure that, on her watch, we do not see that inequality embed itself?

Maggie Throup: I have read the hon. Lady’s Committee’s report with interest and I recognise the points she has raised. We know that vaccine hesitancy among ethnic minority groups has reduced over the course of the covid-19 vaccination programme, but we will not rest on our laurels. We continue to work closely with our valued communities and community leaders to provide advice and information at every opportunity, and we have materials translated into 28 different languages. There have been many ways in which we have reached out to those communities. For example, we have had vaccination sites in mosques—I visited one in Small Heath in Birmingham—and the Bangladeshi community have come together and encouraged people to get a “jab with your jalfrezi”. We are looking at every different way of reaching out to ensure that we reach all those communities.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Scottish National party spokesperson, Martyn Day.

Martyn Day: Vaccination remains one of the most important ways to protect ourselves and others against covid-19, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that he has accepted the independent advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation on the autumn covid-19 booster programme, but what additional steps does the Minister feel need to be taken to encourage vaccine uptake among those with a hesitancy for the additional boosters?

Maggie Throup: The hon. Gentleman is right and, as I said to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), we know that there is more work to be done and we cannot rest on our laurels. We know that covid-19 vaccinations are our best line of defence and that the more people who come forward and take up their first jab, the more people are protected. That evergreen offer is still there, so if anyone has not had their first jab or has not come forward for their second or their booster, I encourage them to come forward now. It is never too late.

Access to GPs

Judith Cummins: What steps he is taking to help improve access to GPs.

Kate Hollern: What steps he is taking to help improve access to GPs.

Steve Barclay: We know that general practices are still under significant pressure and demand for their services is high. We are investing at least £1.5 billion to create an additional 50 million appointments a year by 2024, and of course not all appointments are, or should be, with GPs.

Judith Cummins: Last week, hospital clinicians raised with me their serious concerns that they are seeing incoming case notes of vulnerable and frail patients marked with
“telephone consultation during covid-19 pandemic”,
but those consultations were just in the last few weeks. This is clearly unacceptable and is leaving many of my constituents with the very real possibility of either a missed diagnosis or a misdiagnosis. What action is the Secretary of State taking to guarantee face-to-face appointments that are easily available for the elderly and vulnerable patients who need them?

Steve Barclay: The number of face-to-face appointments is increasing and in May 2022, excluding covid-19 vaccines, 64% of appointments were face-to-face, up from 55%. But the hon. Lady is right to say that patients should have the choice, and that is why the NHS access improvement programme has been supporting practices experiencing greater access challenges. Indeed, one of the first visits I did in my new role was to a GP practice to look at the practical measures it was putting in place to facilitate greater access for its patients.

Kate Hollern: The inverse training law is depriving communities in Blackburn of access to primary care. Blackburn already has one of the lowest ratios of GPs to patients in the country, and it struggles to attract and retain GPs. The Government have committed to provide 6,000 new GPs by 2024, but according to the British Medical Association there are actually 1,737 fewer GPs as of this month. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to level up primary care and deliver the incentives for GPs to train and practise in communities such as Blackburn?

Steve Barclay: I know this is an issue of concern that the hon. Lady wrote to my predecessor about, and indeed she raised its impact on her constituency in the House last month. There are specific programmes such as the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme that was launched in 2016, and the one-off financial incentives to attract GPs to the more deprived areas. We are also looking at how we can have the right skills mix to boost not just the number of GPs but wider access to appointments.

Jo Churchill: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. I offer a solution. Will he commit himself to sorting out the transfer of electronic prescriptions between hospital consultants and GPs, which would stop people trying to get appointments for prescriptions written in hospital. That would simplify things enormously, and my GPs would really welcome it. We could also do rural dispensing doctors while we are at it.

Steve Barclay: I always welcome solutions from colleagues on both sides of the House. From memory, Tim Ferris, who leads on tech within the NHS, is looking at a tech solution—I think it is in beta testing, although I would  have to check. Appointments made shortly after a person has been discharged from hospital are often quite complex cases and create additional pressure on GPs.
Another issue I am keen to explore is GP appointments that can be done through either better use of technology or the wider skills mix so that we can better focus GPs’ time on more complex cases where their expertise delivers the best patient outcomes.

James Gray: A much-needed new medical centre at Calne in my constituency was approved by the NHS in 2021, but there have since been a number of blockages to do with covid and the contractors. Will the Secretary of State look into those problems to find out what the blockages are—I think they are largely bureaucratic—and clear them out of the way to give the people of Calne their much-needed new medical centre?

Steve Barclay: I am very happy to look into that specific issue, which I know my hon. Friend has raised with the Department. I am happy to have further conversations with him.

Simon Lightwood: The GP survey out last week shows that the proportion of people reporting their overall GP experience as very poor or fairly poor doubled between 2021 and 2022. Instead of picking a fight or blaming someone else, will the Secretary of State tell us what he will do to ensure that people in places like Wakefield can see their GP when they need to?

Steve Barclay: Far from blaming anyone else—notwithstanding the fact I have been in post for less than two weeks—I have set out a range of things we need to do, because this is a shared challenge that affects all our constituents, and it is within the context of increased demand. The May figures show a significant increase in appointments—1.31 million appointments per working day this year compared with 1.24 million last year. There is increasing demand, and we need to harness GP time, the skills mix and better use of technology.

Robin Walker: We need more GPs and junior doctors in Worcestershire, and there is strong support from our local GPs, our acute trust and neighbouring trusts for the Three Counties Medical School in Worcester. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the case for providing funded places as swiftly as possible?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend will be aware that, through this Government’s funding, we have opened five new medical schools and, from memory, 1,500 additional undergraduate places. That is thanks to the work of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), who championed this specific initiative to address workforce pressure.
More widely, I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) to discuss issues in Worcester.

Kim Leadbeater: Does the Secretary of State agree that one way we can take some of the pressure off overstretched GP services is to  ensure that pharmacists can continue to play their vital role in looking after the health and wellbeing of patients? Pharmacies across the country are closing because of financial pressures, so will he urgently look into extra support for them to recruit and retain staff?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady raises a valid and important point about getting the right service to patients, which can often best be delivered by a pharmacist. That is why, as I signalled earlier, we need better use of tech to support patients in understanding where they can best access the advice they need.

Kate Griffiths: Access to GPs is a huge problem across my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter, as it is in other constituencies. A walk-in centre in Burton would significantly ease some of the load on our GPs and hospital services. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss this possibility?

Steve Barclay: I have had quite a few meeting requests this morning, and I am always keen to meet colleagues. My hon. Friend will be well aware that part of the reason for having integrated care boards within the place-based approach is that commissioners can determine the best mix of services in the locality, including in Burton.

Emergency Care: Average Waiting Time

Matt Western: What recent estimate he has made of the average waiting time for emergency care.

Maria Caulfield: NHS Digital publishes information on average waiting times, and the data for May shows that the median average total time spent in A&E for all patients was three hours and six minutes.

Matt Western: Across the west midlands, 38 people died waiting for ambulances between March and May 2022. In the same period in 2021, two people died; before 2019, in the corresponding period, there were no deaths. A week ago Sunday, 80 people were waiting in accident and emergency in my constituency. What are the causes of these problems?

Maria Caulfield: The west midlands is more affected than many regions of the ambulance service. There are a number of causes, the first of which is that we are living with covid, which has not disappeared. If we look at the in-patient rates, we see that they have increased significantly; last month, they were 17.9 per 100,000 and they are now up to 24.4 per 100,000 in the west midlands, which is experiencing significantly higher rates than other parts of the country. [Interruption.] If the shadow Secretary of State wants to hear this, I can tell him that we also have a significant number of staff sicknesses from covid; this time last year, it was about 4% of staff but when I spoke to some trusts this weekend I heard that it was up to 6%. That has a knock-on effect on acute and emergency services and ambulance services being able to respond.

Mark Logan: Derek Taylor came to my surgery as his late wife Lynda had tragically passed away in Moses Gate country park while they were out walking together. The ambulance was unable to access the park due to barriers impeding entry, and  he will never know whether Lynda’s life could have been saved. What steps can the Minister take to ensure that all public parks are accessible to ambulances in cases of emergency?

Maria Caulfield: I am very sad to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent and he is right to say that emergency services need to be able to access public areas. I am happy to talk to him about that afterwards to see what more can be done.

Ruth Cadbury: “24 hours in A&E” was a reality TV programme but now it appears to be the reality for far too many people. The zero tolerance standards on 12-hour A&E waits and 30-minute ambulance handover delays are being systematically and seriously breached. So when do the Government plan to achieve those standards, which were set and delivered by the Labour Government?

Maria Caulfield: Let me place on record my thanks to all the ambulance staff up and down the country who have gone above and beyond in the past 24 to 48 hours to be able to respond to extreme pressures that are only really seen in winter times. Let me give a scale of the pressures they are under. Compared with the situation in May last year, there have been over 100,000 more calls to the ambulance service, and there were 2.1 million attendances at A&E departments in June, which is 3.6% higher than the figure for June 2019. So they are under incredible pressure, and I pay tribute to all of them doing their best.

Richard Holden: One issue affecting waiting times in many acute hospitals is the fact that so many people could be in community hospitals instead. In my constituency, I have a bid in to replace Shotley Bridge Community Hospital, doubling the capacity to 16 beds from the current eight. However, this is not under way just yet, as a few more hoops need to be jumped through. Will the Minister or Secretary of State come on a visit with me to North West Durham to see what more we can do to speed through the replacement hospital for Shotley Bridge as quickly as possible, to help ease some of the issues in our acute hospitals?

Maria Caulfield: My hon. Friend is right; the delayed discharges and being able to free up those beds has a knock-on effect on A&E, which in turn has a knock-on effect on ambulances being able to unload. We have the £2 billion better care fund, which is supposed to be addressing just that, to help integrated care boards deliver and help patients get out of hospital. I have a meeting with all the integrated care boards tomorrow, so his is a timely question, but I am happy to meet him as well.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Dr Rosena Allin-Khan.

Rosena Allin-Khan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. A&E waiting times are through the roof, and we have people waiting without a bed—not even a trolley. This is removing the dignity that every patient deserves, but, sadly, it is not a one-off; this is commonplace up and down the country. It is not the Health Secretary who is on the receiving end of it, but staff, who are running from patient to patient trying to ease pain, diagnose illness and save lives—most importantly, it is  of course the most vulnerable themselves. When the Minister hears reports such as this, does she not feel ashamed of the decisions her Government have made over the past 12 years?

Maria Caulfield: I say gently to the hon. Lady, who does amazing work on the frontline in A&E, that I have worked in A&E under the last Labour Government—I am showing my age now—and there were trolley waits and ambulance queues then as well, just as there are in Wales, where Labour is running the NHS, and in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. This is unprecedented pressure, because we are trying to live with covid and deal with a backlog of procedures and rising cases. The shadow Secretary of State was not here yesterday, so he may have missed some of the support that we are putting in. We are putting £150 million of extra funding into the ambulance service, £50 million into 111 to increase capacity, and £30 million into an auxiliary ambulance service to increase support. We are supporting the service, but we must recognise that it is facing unprecedented pressures.

Rosena Allin-Khan: With respect, I will take no lectures from the Minister about working in A&E under a Labour Government and a Conservative Government. I have worked in the NHS under a Labour Government, when NHS waiting times hit record lows, and I have worked under a Tory Government, when NHS waiting lists hit record highs.
The Minister can use the pandemic, the heatwave, or even winter as justification. I have seen that emergencies do increase demand for services, but there is no excuse for not hitting the four-hour A&E waiting target for seven years. There is no defence for stroke and heart-attack victims waiting almost an hour for an ambulance. Undoubtedly, lives will be lost that could have been saved. Will the Minister apologise for those failings?

Maria Caulfield: The hon. Lady says there is no excuse for missing those waiting times, but perhaps she can explain why the Labour Government in Wales are also missing those times.

Cancer Outcomes

Nicola Richards: What steps he is taking to improve cancer outcomes.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome you to the Dispatch Box, Minister.

James Morris: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government are focused on improving the early diagnosis of cancer in England to aid cancer outcome rates. That was set out in the NHS Long Term Plan, setting an ambition of seeing 75% of people diagnosed within stages one and two by 2028. Progress has continued on delivering the Long Term Plan. That includes increased investment and public awareness campaigns, rolling out targeted lung health checks, and introducing non-specific symptom pathways to speed up diagnosis.

Nicola Richards: Very sadly, in April this year I lost my mum to a sudden diagnosis of secondary breast cancer in the liver, and so like many, I understand that cancer outcomes are not just statistics. In my constituency  of West Bromwich East our outcomes are significantly poorer than the national average, and I know what that means for families. When will my hon. Friend publish the 10-year cancer plan, and confirm the levels of investment going into that?

James Morris: I am sure I speak for the whole House in expressing condolences to my hon. Friend for the loss of her mother. I know she is a doughty champion for addressing health inequalities in her constituency. While the publication of the 10-year cancer plan is under review, we remain committed to tackling inequalities and levelling up outcomes, experience and access. That is a key focus of the NHS Long Term Plan and 2022-23 planning guidance, and it remains a priority for the Government and the NHS cancer programme. Approaches to support that are embedded throughout the programme —for example, increased accessibility for the cancer quality of life survey, to help increase representation results and, as I mentioned, the targeted lung health check programme is focused on areas with high lung cancer mortality, where typically there are also high levels of deprivation.

Dan Jarvis: Weston Park Cancer Centre provides outstanding cancer care for patients, not just in South Yorkshire but around the country. I met two previous Secretaries of State, and the outgoing Minister, to press the case for investment in the site, given that it is now 50 years old. Will the Minister please look at the case for investment in Weston Park, so that it can continue to provide outstanding care for patients around the country?

James Morris: I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. We are investing further money—£350 million in diagnostics—and making efforts to address the backlog caused by the covid-19 pandemic.

Bim Afolami: Brain tumours kill more children than any other cancer. My constituent’s five-year-old granddaughter has a brain tumour. She, and many children like her, are being given chemotherapy drugs that were originally developed in the 1960s for adults, and we need more research into this. What can the Minister and the Government do to help accelerate research into paediatric brain tumours to save children such as my constituent’s granddaughter, and will the Minister meet me to discuss the case I have mentioned?

James Morris: That sounds like a very distressing constituency case. Obviously we are investing lots of money in research across the whole cancer spectrum, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue he raises.

Sarah Owen: Unprotected exposure to the sun can leave someone vulnerable to skin cancer, but as my constituent Tina, who suffers with melanoma, knows, the sun is not the only risk factor for skin cancer—sunbeds continue to be used all year round at very high risk. Does the Minister agree that it is time we took the dangers of sunbeds seriously? Does he support Melanoma UK’s campaign to ban the use of sunbeds, and if not, why not?

James Morris: Obviously, given the weather that we are experiencing at the moment, issues to do with melanoma are particularly high on the priority list. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the specific issues that she has raised in relation to sunbeds.

Eye Health

Marsha de Cordova: What steps his Department is taking to improve eye health.

James Morris: We are supporting the prevention of sight loss throughout the NHS sight testing service and diabetic retinopathy screening programmes. Work to reduce smoking and obesity tackles risk factors for sight loss. We are also supporting ophthalmic services to recover from the pandemic and to transform services so that we can meet future demand, including exploring the provision of delivering more services out of hospital, closer to patients where they need them.

Marsha de Cordova: Fifty per cent. of all sight loss is avoidable, but currently there is no overarching strategy in England to govern eye care that would help to reduce sight loss. A strategy for England would improve the quality of life for people who are blind or partially sighted, address health inequalities, and link up patient pathways for overall improved health outcomes. Does the Minister therefore agree that England needs its own national eye care strategy, which would include targets for the reduction of avoidable sight loss, and will he agree to meet me to discuss this further?

James Morris: Given the size of England and the diversity of the health needs of different communities, we believe that commissioning should be locally led, so there are no current plans for a national eye health strategy. However, I am delighted that NHS England has appointed the first-ever national clinical director for eye care, Louisa Wickham, who will want to set priorities in this area. It is also worth mentioning that we continue to be committed to the national eye care recovery and transformation programme, which is looking to transform secondary care ophthalmology services in order to use existing funding to improve service quality and patient outcomes. That remains a top priority for us.

Treatment and Care Innovation: NHS Patients

Colleen Fletcher: What steps his Department is taking to support innovation in the treatment and care of NHS patients.

Maria Caulfield: The NHS has made significant progress in recent years in embracing innovations, from the NHS app where patients can now access their medical records, to the expansion of electronic patient records making it easier for healthcare professionals to share information for better, safer care for patients.

Colleen Fletcher: I recently visited Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust’s wound healing service and saw the ground-breaking work being undertaken there, which is changing the lives of people who were thought to be living with unhealable wounds. By adopting  innovative methods of healing, the service has not only healed the unhealable, giving patients back the quality of life they deserve, but reduced the average cost of healing at the trust. Will the Minister look at how this approach could be adopted more broadly to improve patient care, save money, and reduce on-costs incurred through unhealed wounds?

Maria Caulfield: I thank the hon. Lady, because it is the first I have heard of that and it sounds very exciting. I know how difficult it is with chronic wound management to get wounds to heal. Often these are patients with multiple co-morbidities such as diabetes that make the wounds very difficult to treat. I am keen to visit her constituency and her trust to learn more about it.

Care Setting Transfers: Waiting Lists

Rushanara Ali: What steps he is taking to help reduce waiting lists for people transferring to a care setting.

Gillian Keegan: I assure the hon. Lady and everybody in the House that this is a key focus for the Department as we know that delayed hospital discharges put pressure on the health and care systems and, most importantly, impact our patients. To address delays, we have established a national hospital discharge taskforce, which is running a 100-day discharge challenge, and integrated care systems can now become discharge front-runners to share good practice and ambitious ideas.

Rushanara Ali: I thank the Minister for her answer, but Miriam Deakin of NHS Providers has said:
“There is huge pressure on beds…and a lack of social care capacity means that hospital patients can’t be discharged as soon as they could be to recover closer to home”.
The Royal College of Emergency Medicine has estimated that 57% who longer meet the criteria are stuck in hospital. That is putting huge pressure on hospitals such as the Royal London in my constituency, which is doing amazing work. However, it cannot get the job done if the Government do not step up and back local authorities with the resources they need to provide care for those who can be discharged. That is what is needed. Is it not time that the Minister, with the new Health Secretary, got to grips with this problem, which has built up over a decade because of the decimation of social care? That is what is needed. There is a fix; the Government need to get on with it.

Gillian Keegan: Between March 2020 and March 2022, we made nearly £3.3 billion available to support discharge, recognising the pressures faced by the health and social care sectors, as they manage the demands of covid-19. Under section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006, funding can be pooled across health and social care to ensure the effective use of available resources. That allows funds such as the better care fund to be used to support discharges, and I know that many integrated care systems are focused on doing that and pooling more resources.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to shadow Minister Karin Smyth.

Karin Smyth: I do appreciate that it has only been two weeks, but the Secretary of State will be familiar with the use of root cause analysis  to solve problems; however, yesterday he spoke for almost eight minutes on ambulance delays with scant reference to social care. Had he been badly briefed?

Gillian Keegan: The Secretary of State did mention social care, and of course, very recently, on 1 July, we established the integrated care systems. They are specifically focused on making sure that local authorities work with their local health services to really focus on the patient and improve outcomes for the patient. We recognise that these systems all have to work together around the patient.

Karin Smyth: We understand what the proposals are, but the Secretary of State said earlier that he welcomed solutions. We have heard today from the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. Seven in 10 say that care providers have closed, handed back contracts or ceased trading. We have all seen this in our constituencies. It is mainly due to the now imminent workforce crisis. Will the Minister ensure that the Secretary of State heeds those warnings and responds adequately to the workforce crisis?

Gillian Keegan: This is absolutely key, which is why we are implementing a comprehensive reform programme of adult social care. In September 2021, we committed to investing an additional £5.4 billion over three years, and in December we published “People at the Heart of Care”, which set out our 10-year vision for reforming adult social care and our priorities for investment. This absolutely has to be done—it is a key part of the system—but we have to put the foundations in place. Our 10-year plan will put those foundations in place.

Unusable PPE

Kirsten Oswald: If he will make an estimate with Cabinet colleagues of the amount of unusable PPE procured by the Government since the outbreak of covid-19.

Alan Brown: If he will make an estimate with Cabinet colleagues of the amount of unusable PPE procured by Government since the outbreak of covid-19.

Maria Caulfield: Around 3% of PPE that the Department purchased was unusable. We are working to dispose of this unusable stock in the most environmentally friendly way.

Kirsten Oswald: I am grateful for that response. From the onset of the covid-19 pandemic, the Scottish Government have worked with the NHS and Scottish suppliers, as well as on a four-nation basis, to ensure that Scotland has adequate stocks of PPE. In Scotland, 88% of PPE is produced locally, and the overall cost of pandemic procurement was a third less than for the UK. The Scottish Government have committed to retaining powerful safeguards on the use of public money in healthcare through strong procurement rules. Will the UK Government follow suit and replicate this ethical model?

Maria Caulfield: I am very interested to hear from the hon. Lady, because according to The Herald on Sunday recently, half a billion pounds-worth of procurement in Scotland during the pandemic did not go through the usual scrutiny process. I would be very interested to hear her update on that.

Alan Brown: The Public Accounts Committee found that there is £4 billion-worth of unusable, substandard PPE in storage, which is due to be incinerated, which is hardly environmentally friendly. While cronies and donors were fast-tracked, this substandard PPE put frontline workers’ lives at risk by preventing them from accessing the right equipment. How much of that £4 billion will be recovered, and what other actions are being pursued against these so-called suppliers?

Maria Caulfield: To put this in context, I make no apologies for all the efforts that were made to secure PPE for frontline staff. We delivered more than 21.5 billion items of PPE to keep frontline staff safe during a time when we had a dangerous virus that no one knew anything about, we had no vaccine and there was a global push on the market resources. Those products that we procured that did not meet the standards for health and social care were used in other avenues. For example, we donated masks to transport operators and to schools, so that we could reopen the economy and to help them to keep safe.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call SNP spokesperson, Martyn Day.

Martyn Day: While the Tories flogged off PPE contracts to party donors and friends of Ministers through their unlawful VIP PPE lane, the Scottish Government’s processes ensured value for money, as we have heard; their PPE costs were less than a third of the UK Government’s. Will the UK Government follow Scotland’s example in future, and refuse to engage in cronyism and corruption?

Maria Caulfield: I outlined in my answer to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) that around half a billion-worth of pounds of procurement in Scotland did not go through the usual channels. All offers that were identified, regardless of route, underwent rigorous financial, commercial, legal and policy assessment, led by officials, and the final decision on whether to enter a contract sat with the appropriate accounting officer at the Department.

Topical Questions

Ian Byrne: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Steve Barclay: I am honoured to have taken on the role of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and to have responsibility for incredibly important services that touch all our lives. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), for everything he achieved in this role, and for the dedication he showed. I also welcome my new ministerial team.
Since my appointment, I have been relentlessly focused on the urgent pressures facing health and care, including this week’s extreme weather. Yesterday I updated the House on the strong support we are giving, including extra ambulance capacity and more call handlers, and we will stay vigilant so that we can make sure our health and care system is there for those who need it.
Today marks one year since we lifted covid restrictions. While the virus has not gone away, we are able to enjoy our freedoms, thanks to the incredible vaccine roll-out. I have accepted the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s advice for a covid and flu autumn and winter booster campaign, in which we will roll out that vaccine further.

Ian Byrne: I have been contacted by many constituents working in the NHS who are struggling to cope with financial pressures, exhaustion and stress. I recently spoke to a district nurse using our food pantry in West Derby, and it was a heartbreaking example of how the cost of living crisis is impacting people across our communities. That nurse was going to lose their home and was struggling to feed their children. How does the Secretary of State plan to address the dire situation that the very people he applauded as heroes during the pandemic now face? Maybe a start would be giving NHS workers an inflation-proof rise.

Steve Barclay: On NHS pay, I expect to announce a response to the integrated pay review bodies shortly. We are putting more funding into the NHS, as I signalled in my statement yesterday.

James Davies: Making a diagnosis of dementia is important to allow appropriate treatment, support and time to plan for the future. Pre-pandemic, the diagnosis rate for dementia in England was meeting the two thirds target, but today it is 61.9%. In Wales, data capture and quality is poor, but the equivalent rate is thought to be just 50%. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps he is taking to improve the situation?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend will be aware that the matter is devolved to the Welsh NHS, but I can say that in the last financial year, the Government allocated £70 million to NHS England to specifically address dementia waiting lists and increase the number of diagnoses. To further support recovery of the dementia diagnosis rate and access to post-diagnostic support, NHS England is funding two trusts in each region to pilot the diagnosing advanced dementia mandate tool, which will improve access to diagnosis.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call shadow Secretary of State, Wes Streeting.

Wes Streeting: I welcome the Secretary of State to his first oral questions and, as this is likely to be his last oral questions, also wish him the best for the future. I associate myself with his remarks about his predecessor, who of course resigned from the Government on a point of principle as others chose to remain loyal; on that note, I also pay tribute to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for the diligent approach he took to his work and the spirit in which he engaged with the Opposition.  One of the contenders for the Conservative leadership says that public services are in a state of disrepair. Another describes the NHS backlog as frightening. A third called ambulance waiting times appalling, and of course the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that the former Health Secretary’s preparation for a pandemic was “found wanting and inadequate”. They are right, aren’t they?

Steve Barclay: The Government are committed to putting increased funding into our NHS. I set out yesterday the position on the resource departmental expenditure limit. Just to remind the House of the capital departmental expenditure limit, capital investment in the spending review was £32.2 billion between this year and 2024-25. The Government are committed to putting record funding into our NHS. We are also committed to funding 40 new hospitals and have allocated £3.7 billion to that programme.

Wes Streeting: I cannot believe that the Government are still talking about 40 new hospitals with a straight face. Nobody believes that it is true. As for capital investment, we have the lowest in the OECD and we lag significantly behind.
We have the longest waiting lists in NHS history and record waits for ambulances. People are finding it impossible to book a GP appointment. There are 400,000 delayed discharges each month because the social care support is not there. The Government are finally acknowledging that covid is still a challenge, and that the hot weather is a challenge, but they do not want to talk about their record, which is, I am afraid, at the heart of the challenge. Does the Secretary of State really believe that it is reasonable to expect NHS employers to meet the pay rise for NHS staff from existing budgets?

Steve Barclay: We will respond shortly to the independent pay review body, which, as part of its recommendations, weighs up the pressures on the cost of living and the other factors within its remit. The Government are delivering more doctors, more nurses, more appointments and more treatments, investing in our estate and planning for the future. That includes investment in research and development, and in future technology through our life sciences. That not only delivered the vaccine that allowed us to lift the covid restrictions that the Opposition wanted to retain, but will unlock the technologies of the future.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chairman of the Health and Social Care Committee, Jeremy Hunt.

Jeremy Hunt: May I recommend some scintillating summer reading to the Secretary of State: the study of 4.5 million patients that showed that people who see the same GP over a long period are 30% less likely to go to hospital and 25% less likely to die? Will he, after reading that, consider changing the GP contract to get rid of the micromanagement, and replace it with what doctors and patients want, which is the ability to have a long-term relationship?

Steve Barclay: I think my right hon. Friend knows me well enough to know that I will have a close interest in reading anything over the summer that is data driven.   He highlights an extremely important issue. Just yesterday, I met with Andrea and Simon Brady, whose daughter tragically died of cancer at the age of 27. One of the key concerns that they raised with me was the lack of consistency when it came to the GP that Jessica went to see, and the fact that she kept seeing different people, and there was not continuity of care. Specific cases that I am looking into speak to this issue, and I am happy to look at the data that my right hon. Friend can share.

Janet Daby: As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sickle cell and thalassaemia, I and the chief executive officer of the Sickle Cell Society were due to meet the Secretary of State’s predecessor to discuss the experiences of and health failings for people living with sickle cell and, indeed, sickle cell patients. Will the Secretary of State meet me—if he is still in post in September—or urge his predecessor to meet me and the CEO of the Sickle  Cell Society?

Steve Barclay: I am not sure that I will urge my predecessor to do so, but if indeed there is a successor, I will be happy to share that with them. The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I am happy to look into it.

Tracey Crouch: We are becoming more aware of how poor lifestyles, including with respect to diet, physical activity and stress, can contribute to an increase in the risk of cancer. Research is also highlighting that exercise, particularly moderate-intensity aerobic training, reduces side effects from treatment, anxiety, depression and recurrence rates. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State ensure that alongside diagnostics and treatment, exercise forms a fundamental part of the forthcoming 10-year cancer strategy, not only for preventing cancer but for reducing its recurrence?

James Morris: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As part of our public health messaging and so on, exercise as a preventive mechanism against cancer is extremely important. We have had a call for evidence; we will consider the evidence that has been provided when we look at the 10-year plan, of which exercise will be an important component.

Vicky Foxcroft: Despite repeated questions from me and other hon. Members, immunocompromised people still do not have access to the prophylactic drug Evusheld. It appears that some heads might need knocking together, so will the Secretary of State convene an urgent meeting with AstraZeneca and the UK Health Security Agency to ensure that test results can be released? If the results are positive, will he get on with ordering supplies and rolling them out, so that immunocompromised people can finally get on with living their lives?

Maggie Throup: rose—

Vicky Foxcroft: It is a question for the Secretary of State.

Maggie Throup: The hon. Lady continues to be a loud voice for those who are immunosuppressed, and I commend her for that. As she is aware, Evusheld was awarded conditional marketing authorisation by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which outlined some remaining questions, including about the amount of protection and the dose needed. My Department has been conducting an assessment of Evusheld, looking at the data available and the options for the NHS. We have asked clinicians to look at what we can do for future patient cohorts; we are considering their advice and will update the House shortly.

Edward Argar: One of the great privileges of the three years that I spent at the Department of Health and Social Care was seeing at first hand the amazing work of our NHS workforce; I put on record once again my gratitude to them. Growing that workforce is vital to meeting the future health needs of our population, so will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whom I welcome to his post, reconfirm the Government’s commitment to the target of 50,000 more nurses, and update the House on progress towards that target?

Steve Barclay: May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his service as Minister of State? I think he was one of the longest-serving Ministers in that role; in fact, I think he took over from me, or shortly after me. He carried out the role with great distinction, as I am sure the whole House recognises.
I am very happy to reconfirm our commitment. I think the number is at about a third of a million, and great progress is being made. That enlarged measure is down to my hon. Friend’s work as Minister of State.

Kate Hollern: I wrote to the Secretary of State’s immediate predecessor on 16 May and followed that letter with one to the Prime Minister about the case of a young man in my constituency, Elliott Simpson. Sadly, I have not had a response. Elliott was misdiagnosed with a water wart in a telephone consultation with a GP. When Elliott finally got to see someone face to face, he had late-stage skin cancer. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not currently allow him to receive the necessary life-saving treatment. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Elliott’s family to discuss what can be done to get this young man the treatment that he desperately needs?

Steve Barclay: I am very sorry, as I am sure the whole House is, to hear of the circumstances that the hon. Lady sets out. I am happy to look at the case, as I said to her ahead of this sitting, when I discovered that she had written to my predecessor. As I also flagged earlier, the number of face-to-face appointments is increasing. Telephone consultations are not a new thing; they have been around for a long time and are an important part of the mix—indeed, some patients prefer the flexibility that they offer. But of course I am happy to meet the hon. Lady in due course.

Greg Smith: Long Crendon Parish Council in my constituency has an exciting proposal for an innovative new health and wellbeing centre, including GP services. It has the land from planning gain, and it has an agreement to put Unity Health in as the GP  partnership, but we are stretched for funds to build it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) for his engagement over the past year. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meet me over the summer to discuss how we can move the project forward?

Steve Barclay: Again, as I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, these decisions should not be run from Whitehall and the centre. We should take a place-based approach, letting local decision-makers and commissioners make the decisions to shape the best services through their integrated care boards. My hon. Friend the Minister of State or I will engage with him to ensure that his representations are very much at the heart of any decisions that are taken.

Rushanara Ali: An estimated 117,000 people are reported to have died while on NHS waiting lists. A record 6.6 million people are waiting on the NHS for treatment, and they are in pain and suffering and, in many cases, fearful for their lives. This is a direct consequence of more than a decade of mismanagement and incompetence. What will the new Health Secretary do to give the British people the guarantees that they need to make sure that more do not die while waiting for treatment on the NHS?

Steve Barclay: That is why we have launched a range of initiatives, such as surgery hubs and diagnostic centres, to address the very real backlog resulting from the pandemic. Indeed, the NHS has published its delivery plan for tackling the covid-19 backlog of elective care, and that is focused on four areas: increasing health service capacity, prioritising diagnosis and treatment, transforming the way that NHS provides elective care, and providing better information and support to patients.

Caroline Dinenage: I welcome both the Secretary of State and the new Minister to their places and warn them that the one statistic that they will hear me say time and again is that cancer is the biggest cause of death of children under the age of 14. Both of their predecessors met my constituent Charlotte Fairall, who lost her daughter, Sophie, to a very aggressive form of rhabdomyosarcoma. Their story inspired the speech that the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), gave when he launched the 10-year cancer strategy. With that in mind, I would really appreciate it if the new Secretary of State restated his commitment to that strategy and to including a childhood cancer mission at its very heart.

Steve Barclay: The House recognises how my right hon. Friend has championed this issue over many years. There can be few more emotive issues than the one she draws to our attention. Of course, in keeping with my predecessors, I would be very happy to engage with her on this important issue.

Ronnie Cowan: [R] I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am asking specifically about intractable epilepsy. Three NHS prescriptions have been written for the appropriate medicine, so we have proven that that can be done and that the medicine  can be provided free on the NHS. When can families and friends, who scramble every month to raise thousands of pounds to pay for private prescriptions, reasonably expect to receive this medicine on the NHS?

James Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I deeply sympathise with patients and families who are dealing so courageously with the difficult conditions that he describes. The Government are taking an evidence-based approach to unlicensed cannabis-based products to ensure that treatments are safe and effective before they can be considered for routine funding within the NHS. Whether to prescribe cannabis for medicinal use must remain a clinical decision, and public funding arrangements apply, as they do for all other medicines. The Government remain committed to research and catalysing the generation of evidence to support the use of these products. The National Institute for Health and Care Research remains open—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Mary Robinson.

James Morris: The National Institute for Health and Care Research remains open to receiving research proposals in this area as a priority.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Minister, when I stand up, please do stop. You are the one who is dragging this out, so you tell these people why they cannot get in.

Mary Robinson: I welcome the confirmation of the cohorts to be vaccinated against covid-19 and flu this autumn. Will my hon. Friend advise the House and my constituents whether the two vaccines will be co-administered?

Maggie Throup: My hon. Friend asks a really important question. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has advised that covid and flu vaccines can be given at the same time where that is operationally possible, and we will seek to maximise opportunities to co-promote and co-administer the flu and covid vaccines where it is possible and clinically advised, especially where this improves patient experience and vaccine uptake. Regardless of whether co-administration is offered, it is important that eligible people come forward as soon as they are called by the NHS for their jab, whether for flu or covid.

Beth Winter: Today, the Office for National Statistics reports that real pay is dropping at the fastest rate since records began in 2001. However, it is reported that the Government are going to punish our hard-working NHS staff even further by forcing through a real pay cut of between 5% and 6%. Will the Minister please dispel that by confirming that NHS staff will be awarded an inflation-proof pay rise?

Steve Barclay: The Government have committed to giving NHS workers a pay rise this year, on top of last year’s 3% rise when pay was frozen in the wider public sector. The independent pay review bodies base their recommendations on a number of factors, which include but are not limited to the cost of living and inflation, as well as the economic context and issues such as recruitment  and retention. The Government are considering carefully the content of the pay review body’s report and will respond shortly.

Alicia Kearns: I want to raise the case of 10-year-old Lucas from my constituency, who has a rare form of cancer called DIPG—diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. The only drug that would prolong his life has to come from Germany. The family have raised the funds to pay for the drug, but they are now being charged £530 per shipment in import duty. Will my right hon. Friend please help me to lobby the Treasury for an exemption, because it should not be making money off the back of this poor boy’s lasting difficulties?

Steve Barclay: As my hon. Friend recognises in her question, that is a decision for Her Majesty’s Treasury, but I am very happy to highlight with the Chancellor the case that she brings to the attention of the House.

Christian Wakeford: Many people in the Chamber will know of my passion for addressing alcohol harm and addiction. However, 2022 marks a decade since the last alcohol strategy was introduced, and a decade of Government inaction. With deaths reaching the highest level in 20 years and the number of those drinking at high risk rising steadily, what plans do Ministers have to introduce a new comprehensive alcohol strategy to reduce the number of lives lost to alcohol harm and save the vast cost that alcohol imposes on our society?

Maggie Throup: I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak passionately about the impact alcohol has had on his family, and I commend him for his continued campaigning on the matter. It is not just about plans; it is about action. Through the drugs strategy, we are making the largest ever single increase in drug treatment and recovery funding, with £532 million being invested to rebuild local authority-commissioned treatment services. That will benefit people seeking support for alcohol addiction, as alcohol and drugs services are often commissioned together. In addition, £27 million has been invested in an ambitious programme to establish alcohol care teams in the 25% of hospitals that are most affected by alcohol dependency.

Cherilyn Mackrory: Last week, I chaired a joint meeting of the all-party parliamentary groups on maternity and on baby loss, where we heard from bereaved parents, maternity staff, and the fabulous and dedicated Donna Ockenden. Given that the women’s health strategy is about to be published, can the Minister or the Secretary of State reassure everybody in the sector that it will address maternity safety and the maternity staff numbers we so badly need?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for all her hard work campaigning on pregnancy and baby loss. We will publish the women’s health strategy shortly. Baby loss featured heavily in the call for evidence, and we committed to provide more than £200 million  of funding to improve maternity staffing after the Ockenden review.

Ruth Cadbury: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today’s Order Paper states that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has released three statements. Two have been released—those on dental system improvement and the health update on the Down Syndrome Act 2022—but there is no sign of the Department of Health and Social Care update. We have just had the last oral questions to the Department of Health and Social Care for three months, so will you advise me what we can do to ensure that statements are released in time to be referred to in ministerial Question Time?

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Lady for notice of her point of order. The Government’s guidance states:
“Written statements should be issued at 9.30am where possible…If the statement cannot be issued by 12.30pm, the department should endeavour to notify the Chair of the relevant select committee and/or any other member with an interest.”
It states that that should include “Opposition front bench spokespersons”. Hopefully, the Chief Whip has heard the message and will want to deal with it.

Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: Scrutiny

Anthony Mangnall: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade if she will make a statement on the Australia-UK free trade agreement and the scrutiny process.

Ranil Jayawardena: I have been asked to reply. Our Anglo-Australian trade deal will play an important role in levelling up the United Kingdom. It is expected to increase trade with Australia by 53%, boost the economy by £2.3 billion and add £900 million to the wages of hard-working households across our country in the long run. Her Majesty’s Government have stated on a number of occasions that the agreement will be ratified only once it has passed its statutory scrutiny period under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and, in addition, the necessary implementing legislation must have passed.
Her Majesty’s Government have made extensive additional scrutiny commitments, which include allowing a reasonable amount of time for the Select Committees to produce reports prior to the statutory scrutiny period under CRaG. We further set out that, for the Australia deal, this would be a period of at least three months. In actual fact, double the amount of time has now been provided: the agreement has been available for scrutiny for over six months. I should also point out that, before starting CRaG, Her Majesty’s Government published two reports to support scrutiny: the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission’s report on 13 April, and the Government’s own report under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020 on 6 June. Both reports were provided to the relevant Select Committees prior to publication to support their scrutiny work.
Her Majesty’s Government have now started the CRaG process, following this six-month scrutiny period, which was in addition to the statutory period provided for by CRaG. By the end of the CRaG period on 20 July, the treaty will have been under the scrutiny of this House for over seven months. The House will undoubtedly have benefited from reports from three separate Select Committees—the International Trade Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and the International Agreements Committee in the other place.
In addition, the agreement can only be ratified once Parliament has scrutinised and passed the implementing legislation in the usual way. The agreement requires primary legislation, and the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is currently before the House of Commons and will have its Second Reading in due course. This legislation will be fully scrutinised and approved by Parliament in the usual way. I should point out that we expect Australia to conclude its parliamentary process before we do. Therefore, any delay to our process slows the deal’s economic benefits from being felt across Britain.
Let me say this to my hon. Friend: he knows that my brief usually covers other markets, but the principles remain the same. In my view, it is important to strike the right balance between the scrutiny of trade deals and  bringing them into effect in a timely way so that our consumers and businesses can reap their full rewards. I believe that the balance is right, and that this House and my Department should continue to harness the power of trade to create jobs, boost wages and secure prosperity.

Anthony Mangnall: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question on the Australia free trade agreement. The UQ is supported by the whole International Trade Committee and the Chair, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who cannot be with us but is here in the guise of his favourite Scottish export spirit—whisky, of course. The Chair of the Select Committee and I have very different perspectives on the Australia free trade agreement, but despite that we both wholeheartedly believe in the need for scrutiny in this place of that agreement.
This is the first wholly new trade agreement that we have signed since leaving the European Union, but unfortunately it has not had the scrutiny it deserves. On 8 October 2020, the then International Trade Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary, said that
“we will have a world-leading scrutiny process, comparable with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. That will mean the International Trade Committee scrutinising a signed version of the deal and producing a report to Parliament, a debate taking place and then, through the CRaG…process, Parliament can block any trade deal if it is not happy with it.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 1004.]
I ask the Minister whether the Government are still committed to that point of principle. The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for International Trade have made those commitments to right hon. and hon. Members of this House, and we deserve our say on a trade agreement that makes a significant difference. On the Australia free trade agreement, the Government began the 21-day CRaG process before the International Trade Committee had even produced its report and even before the Secretary of State had come before us to defend the agreement in the first place. The Government refused to grant the Committee’s request for 15 sitting days between the publication of the section 42 report and triggering CRaG, thus denying us more scrutiny. As I have already said, the Government have failed to provide a Minister in good time and good order. In relation to the first report the Committee wrote on this, the Secretary of State was asked eight times to come before the Committee to discuss the agreement. She only did so a week and a half ago. The Government have failed to provide a debate and a vote on the agreement, so will the Minister, as the Liaison Committee and many other Members across the House have asked, delay ratification for the further 21 days and allow us to have a proper debate on this issue? Will he ensure that every future free trade agreement is signed and drawn through the CRaG process, as you have suggested, Mr Speaker? Will he ensure that Ministers are made available to discuss trade agreements ahead of time?
We are asking for nothing that we have not been promised at the Dispatch Box. It is time we are given that.

Ranil Jayawardena: We have a system that compares very well with other parliamentary systems around the world. We will not be extending the CRaG period, given  the extensive scrutiny time that Parliament has had—as I set out earlier, seven months by the end of the period—and we will not be able to offer a debate. The Secretary of State said that she felt the agreement could benefit from a general debate, but that is a matter for business managers in this House. The Labour party was very keen to have another debate yesterday, which took a whole day of parliamentary business from this House.
The section 42 report is there to inform the scrutiny period, not create an additional scrutiny period above and beyond CRaG. We published that report on 6 June. As my hon. Friend says, it was sent to the International Trade Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the International Agreements Committee in the other place on 27 May to ensure they had ample time to consider the report. There is a balance, as I say, between ensuring sufficient time for robust scrutiny and ensuring agreements come into place quickly. I think we have got that balance right.
On CRaG, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 was introduced by the Labour party. It gave the opportunity for parliamentary disapproval of treaties statutory effect and it gave the House of Commons the power to block ratification. Members across the House will know the answer to that. I am more than willing to set out the process, but in the interests of time and allowing people to come in I shall sit down for now.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State, Nick Thomas-Symonds.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful for the granting of today’s urgent question and I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing it.
The Government’s failure to make adequate parliamentary time available for a debate on this trade deal is completely unacceptable and a clear breach of promise. Lord Grimstone wrote in May 2020:
“The Government does not envisage a new FTA proceeding to ratification without a debate first having taken place on it”.
The Select Committee has, rightly, been scathing about the way the Government have handled scrutiny on this issue and about their premature triggering of the 21-day CRaG process without full Select Committee consideration being available to Members. Today’s clear rejection of an extension to the CRaG process is, yet again, unacceptable behaviour from the Government.
The truth is that Ministers are running away from scrutiny. Might Ministers be running away because of the Select Committee’s report stating they lack a “coherent trade strategy”? Or might the Government be hiding from scrutiny because of the chaos at the Department itself? Members do not have to take my word for it. Yesterday, the Secretary of State was saying of her own Minister of State for Trade Policy, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), that there has been a
“number of times when she hasn’t been available which would have been useful and other Ministers have picked up the pieces”.
That is her own Minister. Maybe the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), is one of the   Ministers who has been picking up the pieces. Or might Ministers be hiding because of the lack of progress in their trade policy, with no comprehensive trade deal with the US in sight?
There are profound consequences for our agricultural sector from the Australian deal that Ministers should be open about and accountable for. Is it any wonder that Australia’s former negotiator at the WTO said:
“I don’t think we have ever done as well as this”?
To put it quite simply, when are Ministers going to stop running away from their own failure?

Ranil Jayawardena: I think that, actually, we have a very good deal that the Government should be proud of and which will benefit the British people. As I said—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not listening—this will increase trade with Australia by 53%, boost our economy by £2.3 billion and add £900 million to household wages in the long run. In fact, £132 million of exports already go from Wales to Australia. We want to boost that even further to benefit the people of Wales and his constituency.
As for what my noble Friend Lord Grimstone said, processes for the other place are a matter for the other place. It is clear that the Labour party is so focused on process that they are not focused on securing the benefits for the British people of Brexit.

Mims Davies: The Minister recently joined the second SussExport event at Wiston House, which aimed to boost Sussex trade and our global reach. This is a vital first trade deal. Does the Minister believe that its positive delivery will boost crucial further success, including more jobs, meaning that it can deliver on the SussExport objectives?

Ranil Jayawardena: My hon. Friend did a great deal to create jobs across the United Kingdom in her previous role and she continues to bang the drum for her constituency. It was a pleasure to visit the SussExport event. I believe that tariff-free trade for all British exports will deliver great benefits for businesses in Sussex, including the Bolney wine estate, which I look forward to visiting with her in due course.

Drew Hendry: This deal will punish the food and farming sectors—that is not my conclusion; it comes from the Government’s departmental advice. Those civil servants join the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the National Farmers Union, trade experts and academics. The Prime Minister’s former food tsar has outlined Australia’s
“abysmal record on deforestation, animal welfare and climate”.
The benefits of the deal are pennies compared with the amount that we are losing from not trading as much with our EU neighbours. The Minister is a temp, in place under a lame-duck Prime Minister in a dysfunctional Government. Why is this deal not being brought forward for parliamentary scrutiny, as was promised in this Chamber? Why are the Government flouting their own advice? Why are they happy to sacrifice the food and farming sector? Why would they press ahead with the prospect of job losses, higher food bills and fewer safeguards on food standards? This deal should be halted until we get answers. Scottish households, farmers  and businesses deserve better than these acts of wilful harm. They must be given the chance to choose better than this place.

Ranil Jayawardena: I see that the hon. Gentleman is in his usual mood, talking about trade in one way in the Chamber and the opportunities of trade outside it. The truth is that £333 million of exports from Scotland go to Australia. We want to boost that in the years ahead, and this deal is the way in which we can do that. He refers to me as a temp, but he might want to look at employment law, because I have been in this role for 26 months. I am very pleased that we have now secured trade agreements with 71 countries around the world, covering trade worth £800 billion. That is how we are delivering for the British people. He talks about Britain’s departure from the European Union. Of course, he wants to depart from the United Kingdom, breaking away from the British internal market, which delivers for the people of Scotland.

Flick Drummond: What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the impact on agriculture of this deal, with reference to our need to maintain our domestic food production as a strategic sovereign capacity?

Ranil Jayawardena: My hon. Friend is rightly thoughtful in this area. Food security remains important. As a result of the challenges faced in the last 26 months because of covid and the war in Ukraine, I have seen this for myself. It is right that we back our farmers. It is really important that we seek new markets in which they can secure greater value for their products, which will encourage them to continue to farm more land more productively. I assure the House that the Trade and Agriculture Commission said that the deal does not require the United Kingdom to change her existing levels of statutory protection in relation to animal or plant life, or health, animal welfare and environmental protections, so there is no threat in that regard.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I sit on both the International Trade Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The latter is doing an inquiry into CRaG. We heard clearly from legal experts last week that it is unprecedented for the Government to ratify a treaty before the implementing legislation has been passed. The fact that the Government are trying to ratify the treaty through the CRaG process before that is surely problematic. In addition, the fact that CRaG only allows a treaty to be stopped through a debate and then a vote in this Parliament means that the denial of a debate is the denial of the CRaG process, in the spirit in which it was written. I beg the Minister to reconsider his foolish urgency on this matter, delay CRaG by 21 days—that would not delay the ratification of the treaty, because the implementation legislation is still needed—and give us a debate.

Ranil Jayawardena: I do not think that seven months is rushing anything. This agreement can be ratified only once Parliament has scrutinised and passed the implementing legislation in the usual way.

Jack Brereton: There are huge opportunities from the Australia trade agreement for the ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent. Does my  hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we get on with delivering that and delivering the jobs and opportunities for industries in the midlands and the north?

Ranil Jayawardena: My hon. Friend has done great work at the Department for International Trade and I am delighted that he has championed the Potteries today. The wider region and the west midlands as a whole make £37 million-worth of exports to Australia. He is absolutely right that this deal, unlocking the benefits of Brexit, will secure new opportunities for businesses across his region and beyond.

Mark Hendrick: In October 2020, the then International Trade Secretary—the current Foreign Secretary—set out the CRaG process for Parliament to have a say in the scrutiny of international treaties. This procedure should allow Parliament 21 sitting days to scrutinise the final text. It is disgraceful that adequate time has not been allocated for proper parliamentary debate in this Chamber and scrutiny of the first trade deal to be negotiated from scratch—the Australia-UK free trade agreement. Is it not the case that the Government are becoming arrogant and no longer feel that they need to be accountable to Parliament for their actions? What sort of precedent does this set for the scrutiny of trade agreements?

Ranil Jayawardena: Officials from my Department and the Secretary of State have given evidence to three separate parliamentary Committees on six occasions since the Australia deal was signed in December. There is clearly a lot of scrutiny and this Government are making themselves accountable to the British people through Parliament. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act allows the Commons to resolve against ratification. He will know that process because it was introduced by the last Labour Government.

Alicia Kearns: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this important urgent question. The Minister knows that I have enormous respect for him—he is one of the most diligent and effective Ministers—and there is much to commend in this deal, but many of us made a great number of reassurances to our farmers and food producers that there would be a debate on the Floor of the House following promises that were made at the Government Dispatch Box. What am I meant to say to farmers across Rutland, Melton, the Vale and Harborough villages when they ask why I was not given the chance to have my say in a debate on this important trade deal?

Ranil Jayawardena: My hon. Friend champions food production, including the opportunities for pork pies to be exported around the world. I look forward to making sure that the tariff-free arrangements from this deal deliver for farmers in her constituency and beyond. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy also believes that this is really important—as the Minister responsible for this deal—and the Secretary of State has long talked about the opportunity, as has the Foreign Secretary, for food production across the United Kingdom in seeking new eaters around the world.

Sarah Green: It is not too late: the Minister can extend the period for parliamentary consideration by another 21 days, and I call on him to do just that. UK farmers are facing ongoing labour shortages and rising costs on farms. These problems have been exacerbated by the cost of living crisis, and this deal will open our doors to imported food while doing nothing to support farmers in the UK. What protections have been put in place to ensure that imported food meets the high animal welfare standards in the UK?

Ranil Jayawardena: The first part of the hon. Lady’s question has been asked and answered, and the Trade and Agriculture Commission has answered the second part, on statutory protections. As I said earlier, the TAC says:
“The FTA does not require the UK to change its existing levels of statutory protection in relation to animal or plant life or health, animal welfare and environmental protection.”
It goes on to say—I am sure the hon. Lady has read this, but perhaps, given the time that has passed in the scrutiny of the deal, she has forgotten it—that the FTA
“goes beyond WTO rights and obligations”
in some instances, including the requirement for
“the UK and Australia to aim for high standards of protection in their environmental and animal welfare laws”.

Paul Bristow: I chair the all-party parliamentary group on CANZUK, a campaign group that presses for closer relations between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. I welcome this free trade agreement with Australia and want it to be in place as soon as possible. At the same time, we want a trade deal with New Zealand and accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and hopefully we will see something big and bold with Canada soon. However, does the Minister recognise that this is just the start for us, and will he commit himself to a multilateral trade agreement between all four CANZUK countries as soon as possible?

Ranil Jayawardena: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in support of bringing the CANZUK nations closer together. He is right that this is just the beginning. Not only have we secured trade deals with 71 countries around the world plus the EU, covering trade worth £800 billion, but we are now applying for accession to the CPTPP, which includes Australia, New Zealand and Canada, to deepen our trade ties even further. In his region, the east of England, there are already £498 million-worth of exports to Australia and £81 million-worth of exports to New Zealand. With his championing of business in Peterborough, I am sure those will increase even further.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister is deliberately choosing to miss the point of the urgent question. However much he grins at the Dispatch Box, it will not alter that fact. This is not about whether the deal is good or bad; it is about the fact that this is the first trade deal to come before the House, and about whether scrutiny has been delivered in an acceptable way. As you know, Mr Speaker, the scrutiny belongs to the whole of this House of Commons, not simply to a Select Committee. The Minister must explain how we will get that scrutiny, because he is not doing it in a UQ.

Ranil Jayawardena: I am very happy to set out the process of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, introduced by the last Labour Government. For the first time, it gave statutory effect to the opportunity for parliamentary disapproval of treaties, and the process is—

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: How?

Ranil Jayawardena: I am very happy to set out the process, Mr Speaker, if you allow me the time. There are four points. First, the Government may not ratify the treaty for 21 sitting days—days when both Houses are sitting—after it was laid before Parliament. Secondly, if within those 21 sitting days either House resolves that the treaty should not be ratified by agreeing a motion on the Floor of the House, the Government must lay before Parliament a statement setting out their reasons for nevertheless wanting to ratify. Thirdly, if the Commons resolved against ratification, regardless of whether the Lords did or did not, a further period of 21 sitting days is triggered from when the Government’s statement is laid. During that period, the Government cannot ratify the treaty. Fourthly, if the Commons again resolves against ratification during that period, the process is repeated. That can continue indefinitely, in effect giving the Commons the power to block ratification. Of course, that is what the Opposition want—to block the opportunities of Brexit from this trade deal.

Martin Docherty: The first thing that leaps out from the stats on the website of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is the export of 159 billion Australian dollars-worth of goods and services each year to communist China. The integrated review of 2021 stated that China posed a “systemic challenge” to UK interests, yet here we are attempting to sign a free trade deal with—I will be blunt, Mr Speaker—a state that has been enabling communist China to build capacity, clamp down on dissent and tighten its grip on Hong Kong with exports of raw materials for its economic needs. Can we assume that the Secretary of State will be ignoring the findings of his own Government in the integrated review and supporting China’s application to join the CPTPP alongside the UK and Australia, as he mentioned at the Dispatch Box only a moment ago?

Ranil Jayawardena: I welcome that question, actually. The challenges—[Interruption.] Opposition Members heckle, but the challenges posed by those who do not play by the rules are challenges we should face head on. We are not currently a member of the CPTPP, otherwise known as the trans-Pacific partnership—the TPP—so it is not within our gift to support or block anyone from joining it, but what is clear is that we are first in the queue, we are looking forward to joining it, and we believe that like-minded nations who play by the rules should trade more with one another.

Hilary Benn: The Government made a promise to the House that there would be a debate, and the Government have broken that promise. That sets a very bad precedent, precisely because this is the first trade deal that was not rolling over a deal we had previously. Although the Minister has rejected a debate for the scrutiny of this agreement, can he give  the House a commitment today that for any subsequent trade deals, there will be a debate on the Floor of the House?

Ranil Jayawardena: I think the balance that we have is right. We have already been clear that we—[Interruption.] They ask the questions but they do not want to hear the answers. We have been clear that we would seek to accommodate a request for a debate if one were made by the Committee, subject to parliamentary time being available. The Secretary of State reinforced that before the International Trade Committee on 6 July—the right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about what we have said—saying that she felt the agreement could benefit from “general debate”. However, the business managers have not been able to schedule a general debate before the CRaG period ends on 20 July.

Deidre Brock: The Minister seems to think we should all just calm down about standards, but the text of the deal does not set out crucial conditionality or equivalence on imports based on animal welfare standards used in production. The absence of such equivalence language means that products produced to lower standards will enter the UK market. That is a fact, not spin, so I will ask again: what support do the UK Government intend to offer our farmers and food producers so that they can fairly compete?

Ranil Jayawardena: That question has been asked and answered, but I will answer it again. The Trade and Agriculture Commission has set out that this deal
“does not require the UK to change its existing levels of statutory protection in relation to animal or plant life or health, animal welfare and environmental protection.”
I hope that provides the hon. Lady and her farmers with reassurance.

Clive Efford: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and the other members of the International Trade Committee on standing up for this Parliament. The way the Government are behaving is a disgrace. The Minister knows that there is widespread concern about the lowering of standards in this trade deal, particularly around the use of antibiotics on livestock and harmful pesticides. That is one of the key reasons why it is right that this House should have the opportunity to debate what is in the trade deal. Will the Minister give an undertaking that we will be able properly to scrutinise it and other trade deals in the future?

Ranil Jayawardena: Asked and answered, Mr Speaker, but the truth is that the deal removes tariffs on all British exports to Australia, which will make us more competitive and able to sell iconic products such as cars, Scotch whisky and fashion to Australia more easily. Flexible rules of origin will also mean that British businesses can use some imported parts and ingredients and still qualify for nil tariffs when exporting to Australia. The Committee and the House have had the opportunity to scrutinise that for seven months.

Alistair Carmichael: I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) not just on securing the urgent question, but on the vigour with which he prosecuted it. What the Minister has told us today is not what we were promised by way of scrutiny, and it is not adequate, especially since we now know that the current Foreign Secretary, when she was Secretary of State for International Trade, was warned that this deal would be bad for British farmers and food producers. Will the Minister take back to Government business managers the message that the House needs to be given the debate and vote that we were promised, and that in order to inform the debate, all the advice that was given to the then International Trade Secretary and her successor is required to be published?

Ranil Jayawardena: Again, that question has already been asked and answered, but I will provide the House with a little additional information. This deal—and I am sure that the House has looked at it over the past six months, which will be seven months by the end of the CRaG process—goes further than Australia has ever gone in giving services companies access to the Australian market, which means that firms from architecture to law to financial services to shipping will be able to compete in the Australian market on a guaranteed equal footing. That is great news for every part of our United Kingdom, and I am sure that the House has looked at it over the past six months—seven months by the end of the process.

Bill Esterson: Promises were made during the passage of two trade Bills, and those promises—for a debate on the Floor of the House before ratification—have been repeated ever since by Ministers. The Minister knows only too well that scrutiny after ratification is no scrutiny at all, so why have the Government not used the seven months that he keeps talking about to bring a debate to the Floor of the House, and why are they so against scrutiny of an agreement with such profound consequences for farming, food production and animal welfare?

Ranil Jayawardena: I am afraid I disagree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are not against scrutiny, and indeed we have been open to scrutiny for six months—seven months by the end of the process. I would ask the hon. Gentleman why Scottish National party Members are so against this trade agreement, which secures a benefit of Brexit for people of our country.

Stephen Flynn: Is it the lowering of food standards, is it a couple of pence off a bottle of wine, or is it perhaps a colossal 0.08% of GDP growth that should most excite the people of Scotland about the fact that we left the European Union in order to sign this trade deal?

Ranil Jayawardena: Once again, SNP Members demonstrate that they are anti-trade. I do not think they have ever supported a trade deal in the House, but they will correct me if I am wrong. These are the figures that should excite the people of Scotland, and indeed the people of our whole United Kingdom, given that the UK internal market is Scotland’s biggest trading partner. This deal will increase trade with Australia by 53%, boost the economy by £2.3 billion, and put £900 million into the pockets of people across the United Kingdom.

Derek Twigg: We have heard criticism today not just from the Opposition Benches but from the Government Benches—and I say to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) that in my years in this House I have heard few such forensic and detailed assessments of the way in which the Government are ignoring the importance of scrutiny and democracy. The Minister, and the Government, did promise that there would be scrutiny by the House—that was made very clear—so may I ask the Minister why he thinks it is a good idea for the House not to scrutinise and debate this trade agreement before the Government ratify it?

Ranil Jayawardena: This House, and the Committees of this House and indeed the other place, have already had six months to scrutinise the agreement, and they will have had seven months by the end of the period.

Dave Doogan: This deal was signed in December 2021, and Parliament has never had an opportunity to scrutinise it properly and vote on it prior to ratification. The Secretary of State for International Trade has bottled it twice at the Select Committee, and she has clearly bottled it today, which is why the Minister is here: he has already admitted that this is not his brief. What is it that the Government do not get? Why are they opening up Scottish farmers to a country that is 30 times larger than the United Kingdom? Although the Trade and Agriculture Commission has said that we do not have to review our standards, it is not our standards we are worried about; it is Australian standards.

Ranil Jayawardena: I am not sure that that question really made sense, but let me try and draw some points from what the hon. Gentleman said. The truth is that the Government gave a commitment that the CRaG process would be followed. As I made clear earlier, the Government said that we would seek to accommodate a request for a debate, but that that was subject to the availability of parliamentary time. If the hon. Gentleman wants to read other words into what was said, that is up to him, but that is what the record shows.

Helen Morgan: When l have spoken to farmers in my constituency, they have said that they are very concerned about the deal. They have used phrases such as “sold out” and “bargained away”. They want us to come here and represent their views, because they feel that this deal sets a precedent for all the future trade deals that will come along. It is important for us to have the opportunity to reflect their concerns in this place, and I ask the Minister to reconsider.

Ranil Jayawardena: I am delighted to represent some great farmers as well, in North East Hampshire. Across the United Kingdom, our famers need to have the opportunities to export to the world. For instance, some meats are twice the price in Asia as they are in Europe. The ability of our farmers to access these new markets through CPTPP, of which Australia is a core member, is a great opportunity, which we should be seizing.

Paul Girvan: We have not had an opportunity to discuss this deal in detail with the Minister, either in Committee or on the Floor of the  House, and there are many other deals on the table. Will this be the form for the future, or will we be addressing the matter after today?

Ranil Jayawardena: The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is the statutory footing on which treaties are looked at and ratified and provides for a scrutiny period. To ensure that the House has the opportunity to look at future deals, we have made additional offers, as the House has had on this occasion. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade appeared before the International Trade Committee recently, and she and the Committee were able to follow up these questions and others. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House also wrote to the Committee on 18 July to confirm that there would not be a debate before the summer recess owing to intense pressure on the parliamentary timetable.

Alan Brown: The Minister laughed when Brexit was mentioned earlier, but it is no laughing matter for the Scottish seafood sector, which has been hammered by Brexit, and it is no laughing matter for farmers who have no access to labour to pick the fruit and veg in their fields. The Government’s own impact assessment on this free trade agreement shows that the British agriculture, forestry and fishing sector will lose £94 million a year and the food processing sector will lose £225 million a year. Given how important Scotland is to the overall UK food and drink sector, when will we see the publication of an impact assessment that shows the actual impact in Scotland of that hit of more than £300 million a year?

Ranil Jayawardena: I sometimes fear that some Opposition Members have a permanent sense of humour failure. The facts about the deal are these. It will deliver the benefits of trade to people, businesses and communities in every corner of our United Kingdom: this is how we level up the country. As I have explained, it is expected to increase trade with Australia and put money into people’s pockets, including the pockets of people in Scotland. It means that 100% of tariffs on British exports have been eliminated—and that includes Scottish businesses, which now have guaranteed access to the Australian market, and indeed the ability, across industry, to bid for public sector contracts worth about £10 billion. This is a great opportunity for businesses across Scotland and our whole United Kingdom; and let me just remind the hon. Gentleman that we have secured the best deal that the European Union has ever secured with anyone—a zero-quota, zero-tariff deal.

Richard Foord: Jilly Greed farms near where I live in Devon. She is a co-founder of Ladies in Beef, and this is what she wrote about the trade deal:
“This is like Christmas all over for Australia. There are currently 3,700 tonnes of product coming in from Australia. The agreement will increase it to 45 times that in 15 years.”
Are the Government afraid that the true extent of the damage to west country farmers from this trade deal would be laid bare by full parliamentary scrutiny?

Ranil Jayawardena: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to this place, even though I perhaps disagree with some of his principles. None the less, I hope that I will convert  him to the cause, because of the opportunities that lie ahead for farmers in the west country and beyond. The truth is that this deal secures new opportunities for those farmers to export to the world. It is part of a plan, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) mentioned, that secures access to the CPTPP, and that involves the new trade deals that we are negotiating right now in the Gulf, which the NFU has welcomed, and India.

Martyn Day: I just dinnae like this deal, on top of which it sets a dangerous precedent for our future trade deals with nations such as India, Mexico and Canada, where we will be dealing with far more sensitive products such as eggs, pork and chicken meat. Why is the Minister pressing ahead with it without the promised scrutiny?

Ranil Jayawardena: Asked and answered, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: Right. We now come to the next urgent question, from Dame Diana Johnson.

Contaminated Blood Scandal: Interim Payments for Victims

Diana R. Johnson: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make it statement on the Government’s policy on interim payments for victims of the contaminated blood scandal.

Michael Ellis: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. I note that she does not appear to be seeking the full debate that I recently wrote to her in support of, and I would commend my recent letter to her, wherein I suggested that perhaps a full debate would be in order when the House resumes, if the Leader of the House will agree. I frequently pay tribute to her, as she knows, for her long-standing work on this issue, and I ask her to accept from me that other people are also working hard on it, including my officials and officials from across Whitehall. She has been a resolute advocate for her constituent—also through her all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood—and I am seeking also to support the wider community of people who have been affected by this appalling tragedy.
The specific question that the right hon. Lady raises today concerns the compensation framework study. This was produced by Sir Robert Francis QC and was commissioned by my predecessor in her then capacity as sponsor Minister for the infected blood inquiry. I can tell the House that it was delivered to me as the current sponsor Minister for the infected blood inquiry only in March. Sir Robert had been asked to give independent advice about the design of a workable and fair framework for compensation for victims of infected blood that could be ready to implement upon the conclusion of  the inquiry, should its findings and recommendations require it.
The Government published Sir Robert’s study some six weeks ago on 7 June. Sir Robert then gave evidence about his work to the inquiry last week, on 11 and 12 July. His evidence was quite detailed, quite lengthy, quite technical and forensic. As hon. Members will appreciate, Sir Robert’s study is a comprehensive and detailed one. It reflects the contributions of many victims and their recognised legal representatives, and of the campaign groups who have been representing the infected and affected communities so well. In total, Sir Robert makes no fewer than 19 recommendations that span the full spectrum of considerations for the creation, status and delivery of a framework, including non-financial compensation, for victims—both individuals who were infected by contaminated blood or blood products and those whose lives were affected after their loved ones or family members received infected blood or infected blood products.
The Government are grateful to Sir Robert for his thorough examination of these complex questions and the detailed submissions, and I wish to assure all those who have taken part that the Government are focused on making a prompt response. One of Sir Robert’s recommendations, and the focus of the right hon. Lady’s question today, is that the Government should consider making interim compensation payments to infected blood  support scheme beneficiaries before a compensation scheme is established, in the interest of speeding up justice and giving some level of assurance and security to those who may not live to see the end of the inquiry. My colleagues and I are particularly and keenly aware of this reality. After all, it was this Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is a very important debate but I do not think that people have advised the Minister on this and he is way over time. I do not know who has written his speech for him, but there are lots of people wanting to get in and a lot of business ahead. I presume he is nearly at the end.

Michael Ellis: Yes, Mr Speaker, just two paragraphs left. I apologise if I have run over.
I was saying that my colleagues and I are keenly aware of this reality. After all, it was this Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead that launched the inquiry in the first place and it was this Government under the current Prime Minister that commissioned the compensation framework study last year.
To conclude, I can confirm to the right hon. Lady and the House that officials across Government are making haste to address this as quickly and thoroughly as possible. However, responsible government requires proper and careful consideration of how complex and important schemes can and should work, and it will take a little more time for the work to be completed.

Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just say that we need to advise Ministers of how much time they have? When people are putting speeches together, can they please try to work within the allocated time, because all these Members here have great interest in this issue and need to get in.

Diana R. Johnson: Thank you for granting this urgent question today, Mr Speaker. The response from the Paymaster General is yet again wholly inadequate and insulting to those who have suffered so much over so many years. With over 3,000 people dead and over 419 of them dying in the five years since the public inquiry was called, and with one person dying every four days on average, people cannot wait a day longer than necessary.
As the Paymaster General set out at length, to avoid further delays the Government asked Sir Robert Francis QC in May 2021to undertake a parallel in-depth review of financial compensation ahead of the overall public inquiry concluding. Sir Robert found a “compelling case” for interim payments of at least £100,000 to those affected. Ministers have had these recommendations since March but they refused to publish them, saying that they wanted to publish their response at the same time. We waited and waited, then the review was leaked to The Sunday Times newspaper and the Government finally published in early June but not with their promised Government response. Last week, as the Paymaster General said, Sir Robert gave oral evidence at the public inquiry on 11 and 12 July, making the case again for interim payments.
The Government have already, rightly, granted £30 million of interim compensation for the Post Office Horizon IT scandal long before its public inquiry concludes, as well as interim payments for the Windrush scandal, but not for infected blood. Given the undoubted urgency, on 15 July Sir Brian Langstaff QC started a 10-day consultation on using his own powers to recommend interim payments ahead of his final report to which the Government will need to respond. Its 25 July deadline comes after the House enters the summer recess. As Mr Speaker has repeatedly said, this House should hear announcements first.
After decades of cover-up and appalling treatment, what exactly is preventing the Minister from announcing today, before the summer recess, that the interim payments recommended by the Government’s own independent reviewer will be paid? If not now, when? What is the timetable for the announcement on interim payments and on a response to the wider review? Will the Paymaster General tell me when we will see the Government’s submission, which I am sure his officials are preparing, to the independent inquiry on interim payments that Sir Brian has set up?

Nigel Evans: I gave the right hon. Lady some injury time there because the Minister overran, but I remind everybody that it is normally three minutes and two minutes.

Michael Ellis: I am conscious of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker’s admonitions about speed, so I will be brief. The Government will need to reflect carefully on the very detailed evidence that Sir Robert gave only last week in two days of evidence. That forensic detail included issues such as scope, the types of benefit, the legal issues and the legislative issues. There is a great deal of complexity and interconnectedness in this matter, and we want to get it right. We will act, as we have done, as a responsible Government throughout this process. We will continue to do that.

Steve Brine: I speak as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS. Due to ignorance about HIV and a lack of understanding about how it is transmitted, many people assumed that people with haemophilia were infected with AIDS, which forced so many to hide their haemophilia for fear of the stigma and discrimination. Frankly, they have suffered enough.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the then Prime Minister, announced this inquiry when I joined the Department of Health as a Minister five years ago, and we are still here. An urgent question from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) in the last week of term has become a staple, but it should not be needed. Is work under way to identify people who will be eligible for the interim compensation payment scheme, or are the Government still considering whether there should be such a scheme? That is an important distinction, and my affected constituents would like to know the answer.

Michael Ellis: The whole matter is still being considered. There are 19 recommendations, and my officials are working hard across Whitehall on the matter. It is unfair and inaccurate to characterise this as having made no progress over the years. Of course it made no  progress, or hardly any progress, for many, many years after the infected blood scandal began. Since my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead began the inquiry, considerable progress has been made and is being made.

Fleur Anderson: I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question.
I start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for securing this urgent question and for her years of campaigning on behalf of the victims of this horrendous scandal. These excuses just do not wash. Where there is a political will, as we saw at the beginning of covid, the Government can act very fast, but we have seen the opposite of haste on this issue.
For too long, the contaminated blood community has been failed by Government and ignored by those who let their demands fall on deaf ears. Tragically, as a result of this delay, many members of the infected blood community will not live to see the outcome of this inquiry. The longer it goes on, the fewer victims will be around to see justice done. Is that what the Treasury wants to happen?
Justice delayed is justice denied, but this Government continue to hide behind more and more reviews. The Paymaster General, as he just said, received Sir Robert Francis’s report on the compensation framework study four months ago and pledged to respond in due course, but what work is currently under way to respond to the report’s 19 recommendations? How many meetings have been held? What is concretely being done?
With one person dying every four days as a result of infected blood, how does the Paymaster General justify his Department’s slow response? The deadline for the response will now fall after the House enters its summer recess, but what is to stop him publishing his response early so that Parliament has the chance to scrutinise and debate the outcome? Does he agree with Sir Robert that there is a moral case for compensating victims and for getting on with it earlier? This inquiry also seeks to investigate why warnings about the safety of blood products may have been ignored, and why plans to make the UK self-sufficient in blood products were scrapped. What is the Paymaster General’s assessment of these issues?
I pay tribute to the courage, resilience and determination of the survivors of the contaminated blood scandal, and their families, who have stayed in this fight for too long. It is time for answers.

Michael Ellis: My officials are working hard on this matter with the Department of Health and Social Care and across Whitehall. There are 19 recommendations, and we had Sir Robert Francis’s very detailed and forensic evidence only last week. The matter is being given the fullest, speediest and most expeditious consideration, and I ask the hon. Lady to bear in mind that officials across Whitehall feel just as passionately as I do, and as the House does, about getting this right and doing the right thing for all those infected and affected.

Damian Hinds: I very much welcome Sir Robert’s comprehensive work, including the recommendation on expedited payments. I have corresponded with the Minister on this on behalf of my  constituents, and I am grateful to him for his reply and for expressing his understanding of the time sensitivity. I join others in urging him to look not only carefully but urgently at the case for expedited payments to people who will receive moneys through the compensation scheme anyway, given the passage of time and given how much these people have suffered through no fault of their own. They have been let down by the system.

Michael Ellis: My right hon. Friend’s point, and the strength of it, is noted.

Chris Stephens: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on securing this urgent question. She chairs the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood tenaciously and quite superbly. I note the case of a young family in my constituency.
Sir Robert, in his evidence to the inquiry last week, said there should be no barrier to starting work now on setting up the compensation framework in advance of the end of the inquiry. He suggested that the appointing body be set up in shadow form to begin appointing panel members and gathering data on claims.
The report’s first recommendation says there is “a strong moral case” for compensation. Do the Government agree that there is a strong moral case for compensating people affected by contaminated blood? How will they ensure interim payments are also available to bereaved partners, parents and children, many of whom have so far been excluded from support?
Finally, recommendation 15 says that all support payments from current support schemes should be raised by at least 5% above median earnings and should be guaranteed for life by legislation or secure Government undertaking. Will the Government commit to providing that security?

Michael Ellis: I recognise the power of the hon. Gentleman’s point about his own constituents, and many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will also have constituents who are affected. I cannot prejudge the matter, of course. Work is ongoing at haste, and a lot of analytical work needs to be done. We will have the answers to those questions as soon as we can.

Kevin Hollinrake: One of the first meetings I attended after being elected to this place in 2015 was a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, and the campaign had already been running for many years. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who have still not received their compensation. They do not care about consultation or compensation frameworks. They need money. This is such a clear case of injustice. Will my right hon. and learned Friend please impress it upon the Prime Minister, before he leaves office, to make these interim payments now?

Michael Ellis: My hon. Friend’s eloquent point is noted and will be relayed.

Catherine West: My constituent Nick was infected with hepatitis C. When he died in 2012, he left behind his partner and a tiny baby. Ten years on, this little girl is about to go to  secondary school. These families cannot afford any more delay. Will the Minister pledge today that not only the living but those who have been so badly affected by the loss of a loved one over the decades will receive interim payments?

Michael Ellis: I cannot, at this moment, prejudge the ultimate decisions on this matter, but I can say that the matter has my full attention and the full attention of officials across Government, and it will be given the attention it so richly deserves.

Richard Holden: I speak as a member of the APPG on haemophilia and contaminated blood.
With Sir Robert Francis’s report recommending that substantial compensation be paid to those infected and affected by contaminated blood and blood products, what conversations have taken place with Her Majesty’s Treasury on allocating a sufficient budget to cover the costs between the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Treasury itself?

Michael Ellis: I cannot speak exactly to my hon. Friend’s point, but the general point he makes is a good one. There are issues across Whitehall and across Government that need to be addressed in all these matters. As I have said, that work is continuing with DHSC and across Government.

Christine Jardine: We have all heard what the Minister has said, and we all appreciate that he appears to be genuinely concerned, but does he appreciate that, for our constituents who have waited decades, too much time has already been wasted, too many people have died and too many families have been left to suffer without the compensation and justice they so richly deserve? Will he please say something today to reassure them that they will get more than just more words?

Michael Ellis: I hope I can relay, and have relayed, to the House my feelings on the matter, which I am sure are the same as feelings across this House. This is not a party political issue. It is one about which we all feel strongly and we recognise the matter for what it is. Having said that, I know that the hon. Lady will understand that we have to go through the requisite processes to make sure we get these things right, and that is what is happening. This is not a question of dilatoriness and of sitting on one’s hands. Every effort is being made to process this matter as expeditiously as possible.

Ian Lavery: The contaminated blood victims are entitled to be fed up to the back teeth with bluster, delay and dithering from the Government. Two victims are dying each week. There are 208 victims who have died in Wales, 548 in Scotland, 100 in Northern Ireland and 3,000-plus in England. There are 419 victims who have died since the inquiry began in 2019. Sir Robert Francis stated in recommendation 14 of his report that interim payments should be paid without delay. Has that recommendation actually been costed? Will the Minister tell the House how many times his office has been in touch with the Treasury to discuss the compensation set out in recommendation 14?

Michael Ellis: I am very conscious of the passage of time from when the infected blood issue began many, many years ago—decades ago—and the inquiry that was begun by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead in 2019. I am conscious of the years that have elapsed and I reiterate what I have said about moving as expeditiously as possible.

Paul Girvan: I want to speak and ask a question on behalf of a lifelong friend of mine who was born a haemophiliac. Unfortunately, as a young boy he ended up having factor VIII that was contaminated. He is now in his 60s; with the help and care of our health system he is still here. He has survived, but he has had to have a liver transplant. That gentle man has had to live a life where he has been somewhat living under shadow. Subsequent Governments have failed up to now to do anything. I thank the Minister for the movement that has been made up to now in relation to the report that is coming forward, but I have concerns about the payments, and I am asking for interim payments to be made urgently. This man’s friends have all passed away and I feel that further delay means that we are just passing the ball further down the road. This is a UK-wide inquiry and I ask that if payments are made, they should be paid as UK-wide payments and not as money that will go into the block grant of devolved institutions, which, ultimately, might not make its way to those directly affected.

Michael Ellis: The hon. Gentleman makes his point with characteristic eloquence, and my heart goes out to his constituent in that appalling example. That is one of many tragic examples in this matter. I also note what he says about the Northern Ireland aspect of this and that matter will be given proper consideration.

Clive Efford: The fact that interim payments have been recommended implies that there  is an urgency in compensating these people. It is  five years since the inquiry was set up and more than 400 people have died since that time. So what is it about the 19 recommendations that links them to the interim payments? Why do the Government have to wait to respond to those 19 recommendations and not, as the report suggests, get on with the interim payments?

Michael Ellis: It is not as though the Government are waiting; the Government are working, across Whitehall, to produce results in the matter. There is no dilatoriness here; there is expedition on the part of my officials and officials across Government, and the wish to get the matter right.

Philippa Whitford: The Irish Government established their compensation tribunal more than 25 years ago, yet the UK Government continue to leave victims facing death, without even basic justice for the harm done to them and their families. I remind the Paymaster General that this urgent question is about interim payments. Will he at least commit to moving forward now with key recommendation 14, on interim payments, rather than leaving victims and their families to face ongoing financial hardship?

Michael Ellis: I cannot prejudge the matter at this stage, for reasons that I have already given.

Sammy Wilson: The Paymaster General will know that 419 people have already died, and it is estimated that one will die every four days, so this is urgent. I respect the points he has made and believe that he wants this matter dealt with urgently. However, Sir Robert Francis reported in March; the Department is aware of the information and the forensic detail that the Paymaster General has referred to, and it promised a response to that when it published the report. That has not happened. To say that Sir Robert gave his evidence to the inquiry only last week is misleading the way in which this should be debated, because the information was known. Before he ever gave his evidence to the inquiry, the Government had that information, so why can they not act on the interim compensation payment, as Sir Brian Langstaff has said he wishes, at least to deal with the immediate hardship people are facing?

Michael Ellis: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept from me that the matter is complex, and that things are interconnected—I use that word advisedly—across Government, which makes them particularly complex. This may be more complex than other comparable schemes. I ask him and others to accept that everyone is working as fast as they can to achieve the right result on this matter.

Barbara Keeley: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson): the Paymaster General’s response was inadequate. Describing the people we are talking about—our constituents—as “tragic examples” is not helpful. I have three constituents affected, one of whom was infected with hepatitis C in the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital in the early 1980s. In January 2014, he found out that he had begun to develop cirrhosis of the liver. He has had to put his career on hold while he is having treatment, and he has had great stress and worry. It is only right that my constituents, and the others we are hearing about who have been affected by this scandal, receive the financial help and support that they deserve. How soon will the Government implement Sir Robert’s recommendation that substantial interim payments be offered of no less than £100,000?

Michael Ellis: As soon as is reasonably possible.

Hannah Bardell: My constituent Linda Cannon lost her husband after he received a blood transfusion that infected him with hepatitis C. My constituent Vera Gaskin has stage two chronic cirrhosis of the liver, a serious and lifelong condition, which she got through contaminated blood. I have sat with both of my constituents and listened to them describe the impact on their life. I have been raising this matter for seven and a half years, and we are about to have our fourth Prime Minister in that time. Some 400 people have died since the inquiry started five years ago. Is the Government’s strategy to wait for more people to die before they get justice—we can give people money right now, as has been recommended—or will the Government finally pull their finger out and give justice to the people affected by contaminated blood?

Michael Ellis: I am sorry, but the hon. Lady’s question is unworthy. It is completely wrong to characterise anyone as waiting for people to pass on. That does not  do justice to the gravamen of the situation, or to the officials working on the matter. I reiterate that good people are working hard to get the right result on this matter. I hope she will reflect on that.

Andrew Slaughter: Most of us here represent constituents who are victims of the contaminated blood scandal. As they have waited for justice for so long, there is often quite a long gap between our hearing from them, and we wonder, “Have they moved away? Have they just been exhausted by the process? Are they too ill? Have they died?”. This is an extraordinary, cruel process, but also an unnecessary one. Interim payments are a common feature of personal injury litigation. We know exactly what they are, and they do not, by definition, prejudice the outcome of any inquiry. Just answer one question: what prejudice is there to the Government in making the interim payments now?

Michael Ellis: It is not a matter of prejudice. The Government have a responsibility to work these systems effectively and correctly, and they have to make decisions based on the complexity and interconnectedness of all these issues. The situation. The matter is not as the hon. Gentleman says; it is a question of getting these things right as speedily as possible.

Alison Thewliss: I have constituents who were infected, and constituents who were affected by, and bereaved as a result of, the contaminated blood scandal. I pay tribute to all the campaigners, the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, the Factor 8 campaign, and everybody who has done so much work on this issue over the years. Their stories are seared on my memory, as is the evidence that I have seen tweeted from the inquiry. It is absolutely chilling. People are reported to be dying at a rate of one every four days. This community cannot wait. They have already waited, suffered, and been let down for far, far too long. What conversations have been had with Treasury officials about the urgency of releasing funds for interim payments right now?

Michael Ellis: It is well understood that the matter is urgent and important. It is also understood that it is complex and interconnected. I assure the hon. Lady that questions such as this in the House, and the points that she and others have raised, help to reiterate, if that were needed, that the matter should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Jim Shannon: I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her dogged perseverance. We are all indebted to her for her sterling efforts. More than 400 people have died since the publication of the report five years ago, and every one of those deaths is a tragedy, as I know the Minster appreciates. It is time to do the right thing. Will the Minister commit to action on a reasonable timescale, to put the minds of victims of contaminated blood, and their families, at ease? They have suffered considerable stress and anxiety, due to poor health and extreme financial difficulties. As each day goes by, those financial difficulties and debts mount up. Time is of the essence.

Michael Ellis: I accept the premise that time is of the essence, and the point that the hon. Gentleman eloquently makes about each day that passes. I am very conscious of that, as are those working with me, and I ask him to accept that.

Pete Wishart: There is no good reason why interim payments cannot be made. When we first raised issues of contaminated blood some 20 years ago, we were repeatedly told that no wrongful practices were employed. Andy Burnham conceded at the inquiry that he and his ministerial team were given lines by officials that he now knows to be false, and that that has had an impact on real lives. What is being done to address that misinformation, and will the Minister commit to an inquiry, over and above Sir Robert’s, into why MPs were misled at that time by officials?

Michael Ellis: I cannot commit to that. I am not aware of the detail of the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have seen no evidence of officials giving deliberately incorrect information, but I will look into the matter.

Nigel Evans: I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her urgent question, and the Minister for responding for just over half an hour.

Supply of Drugs to Children Under 16 (Aggravated Offence)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Kevin Hollinrake: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the offence of supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug aggravated when the person to whom the drug is supplied or offered is under 16; and for connected purposes.
As John F. Kennedy once said:
“Children are the world’s most valuable resource and its best hope for the future.”
Society recognises our special duty to protect children, and to ensure that those who bring them harm feel the full force of the law. The Supply of Drugs to Children Under 16 (Aggravated Offence) Bill, or Leah’s law, intends to change the law to make clear that no person under the age of 16 can consent to taking illegal substances, and to ask our judges to impose tougher sentences on those who supply drugs to our children. That will have the dual effect of keeping young people safe and acting as a deterrent to those who callously target children.
To outline why this change is long overdue, let me explain the tragic background to the Bill. In May 2019, 15-year-old Leah Heyes from Northallerton was sold MDMA by two friends. She took the substance in a car park and died shortly after, tearing the life of her family and community apart. The unimaginable was exacerbated by the fact that the young adults who sold Leah the drugs received custodial sentences of 21 and 12 months respectively. The two ended up serving a paltry six months each.
At 15, Leah was, in the eyes of the law, just a child when her life was cruelly cut short. Quite rightly, society and the law offer greater protections and special consideration to children. As we know, it is illegal to sell alcohol or cigarettes to, or to have sex with, somebody under the age of 16, and somebody under that age cannot consent to sex. Even beauty salons that allowed under-18s to use sunbeds would be committing a specific offence against children. When it comes to the supply of drugs, one would think that we would offer our children greater protection against those who seek to exploit their innocence, but we do not.
It is an offence under section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to supply a controlled drug to any person, but that blanket approach to sentencing does not protect those who need it most. There is clear disregard shown, and a callousness, in knowingly deciding to put a child’s life in danger, yet when it comes to dealing drugs, there is not a greater penalty applied for doing that. Although there are statutory aggravating factors—for example, when an offender uses a child to deliver drugs, or supplies drugs on or in the vicinity of school premises during or close to school hours—those do not apply when someone sells drugs to children such as Leah; it is a huge gap in the law.
Although the tragedy of drug-related death is not limited to children, adults are seen by law as having legitimate agency and the capability to make their own choices. In other areas, however, the law recognises that children do not have that capability. Given the added  peer pressure in this age of social media, children are particularly impressionable and vulnerable targets. It cannot be right to class a child’s agency as being the same as an adult’s when it comes to something as damaging as drugs. We know that county lines drug gangs target young people, who in turn go on to supply drugs to their peers. Profits pile up for the dealers, and the cycle continues.
Although case law has established law that targeting vulnerable individuals or children in order to supply them with drugs could be examples of aggravating features, that approach is not mandated by a specific piece of legislation, and that is what Leah’s law would do. This would not be an unconventional approach to drugs sentencing. Certain states in Australia recognise the differentiation, and in Tasmania, New South Wales and South Australia, there are specific offences for the supply of drugs to under-16s.
Since Leah’s death, her mother, Kerry Roberts, has tirelessly championed the case for Leah’s law—that is why I am standing before the House now. Kerry is watching today, and I thank her for raising awareness of the issue. She does not want her daughter’s death to be in vain, and for that the whole House will have nothing but admiration. Although Kerry is not my constituent, drug-related crime among young people affects each and every one of us in Parliament, and I fully intend to help her campaign succeed. If we ensure that just one person thinks twice about selling drugs to an under-16-year-old, save just one child’s life, or create just one better start in life, it would make the Bill, and all Kerry’s crucial work, worth while.
I do appreciate that the Government are carrying out a great deal of work on restricting drug supply and working with charities and agencies, but the reality is that the global fight against drugs is a massive undertaking and this will take many, many years to solve. We must deter these perpetrators from preying on our children. We can start to tackle this issue on behalf of all the families whose lives have been devastated by drug crime. It speaks volumes that the Leah’s law petition garnered 10,276 signatures, but it is disappointing that the Government’s response thus far is that they are not going to act on this. I did, however, have a very constructive meeting with the Minister, so I hope that position will change soon.
It is simple; I am asking the Government to think again and support my Bill to make it a specific offence to supply drugs to those aged under 16, ensuring that this crime carries a harsher sentence. I will continue to work with Leah’s mother and with Ministers to make this campaign a reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Kevin Hollinrake, Andrew Selous, Andy Carter, Tim Loughton, Anthony Higginbotham, Jack Brereton, James Daly, Matt Hancock, Craig Williams, Jim Shannon, Chris Bryant and Liam Byrne present the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 145).

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee
[Relevant document: Oral evidence taken before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 29 June 2022, on Brexit and the Northern Ireland Protocol, HC 285.]
[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

Clause 7 - Regulation of goods: option to choose between dual routes

Stephen Farry: I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 7, page 5, line 5 insert—
“(1A) This section applies only if the following conditions have been met.
(1B) The first condition is that a Minister of the Crown has consulted appropriately with representatives of Northern Ireland business organisations on the option to choose between dual routes.
(1C) The second condition is that a Minister of the Crown has reached an agreement with the European Union on the option to choose between dual routes.
(1D) The third condition is that the Northern Ireland Assembly has approved by resolution the option to choose between dual routes.”
This amendment would impose conditions before the option to choose between dual routes could be implemented.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 45, in clause 8, page 5, line 24, at end insert—
“only if the conditions in subsection 7(1A) to (1D) have been met.”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 44.
Clause 8 stand part.
Amendment 36, in clause 9, page 5, line 27, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Amendment 28, page 5, line 34, at end insert—
“(3) Before making regulations under this section, a Minister of the Crown must carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed regulations, and conduct a consultation on the proposed regulations with any stakeholders whom the Minister of the Crown considers appropriate.
(4) The Minister of the Crown making regulations under this section must lay before each House of Parliament with a copy or draft of the regulations a copy of the relevant economic impact assessment and a report of the relevant consultation.”
This amendment would require an economic impact assessment to be carried out before a Minister could make any provisions for the dual regulatory regime.
Clause 9 stand part.
Clauses 10 and 11 stand part.
New clause 13—Report on dual access—
“A Minister of the Crown must, at least once in every three months from the day on which this Act is passed, lay before each House of Parliament a report stating what, if any, steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to promote, uphold, support and facilitate dual access to the British market and European markets for Northern Ireland businesses either as a consequence of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act or by alternative means.”
This new clause requires a Minister of the Crown to lay a report before each House of Parliament stating what, if any, steps the Government is taking to promote, uphold, support and facilitate access to both British and European markets for Northern Ireland businesses, pursuant to the powers conferred by this Act and any other powers.
New clause 14—UK-EU Joint Committee: duty to give primary regard to North-South proposals—
“A Minister of the Crown must respect, reflect and support in UK-EU Joint Committee meeting proposals relating to the regulation of goods made by the North-South Ministerial Council and other North-South Implementation bodies to the Specialised Committee on the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland pursuant to Article 14(b) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”
This new clause seeks to require a Minister of the Crown representing the United Kingdom in UK-EU Joint Committee meetings to respect, reflect and support proposals made by the Strand Two Belfast/Good Friday Agreement bodies acting in their capacity as set out in Article 14(b) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
New clause 15—UK-EU Joint Committee: report to Parliament—
“(1) When the UK-EU Joint Committee has discussed regulation of goods in connection with the Northern Ireland Protocol, a Minister of the Crown must lay a report before each House of Parliament detailing those discussions within 21 days of the meeting of the UK-EU Joint Committee at which those matters were discussed.
(2) Each such report must include information on how UK representatives adhered to and sought agreement with representatives of the European Union on relevant proposals—
(a) agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive or endorsed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, or both, and promoted by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly, or
(b) agreed by the North-South Ministerial Council or North-South Implementation bodies and made to the Specialised Committee, pursuant to Article 14 (b) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”
This new clause would require a Minister of the Crown to report to each House of Parliament on meetings between the UK and EU in the Joint Committee within 21 days of each meeting and to include information on the regard afforded to any submissions from the Strand One and Strand Two institutions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement by UK and EU respectively.

Stephen Farry: Earlier in the debate on this Bill, we discussed solutions on which I think it is fair to say that there was some common ground, such as the idea of red and green channels. The problem was the means of getting there: threats or unilateral action from the Government, versus building trust and using negotiation. Never mind the means, however; dual regulation is fundamentally a very bad idea. The business community in Northern Ireland has expressed significant concerns about this aspect of the Bill. Notably, this includes the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association, the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association, and Manufacturing Northern Ireland.
There are many motivations behind the Bill. However, the claim that it responds to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland or the interests of the business community in Northern Ireland does not stand up to scrutiny. I remain very critical of the so-called engagement process from both the Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Office and the Northern Ireland Office. They have sought an echo chamber to reinforce their own agenda rather than consulting widely.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the hon. Member for tabling amendments so that the issue can be debated properly and thoroughly, but this is where I start to disagree with him. One of the conditions laid down in amendment 44 is
“that a Minister of the Crown has reached an agreement with the European Union on the option to choose between dual routes.”
Does he seriously suggest that a Minister of the Crown—of Her Majesty’s Government—must seek the permission of the European Union on how we should trade within the boundaries of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? That is effectively what is being asked for.

Stephen Farry: Indeed. Unfortunately this is the outworkings of Brexit, which the hon. Member pursued. We have a protocol in place to manage the fall-out from that decision, and a whole host of implications will flow from it. I am very sceptical, as indeed is the business community, about the notion of dual routes, but if that were to be conceded in relation to any one set of products or commodities, it would have to be by negotiation with the European Union. If not, that flow of trade would not have recognition and it would not work for the business sector in question.
On consultation, I want to highlight the current run of propaganda videos coming from the Northern Ireland Office. We are joined by the new Secretary of State, whom I welcome to his place. Those videos focus very heavily on haulage, which of course does have some particular concerns, but that comes at the expense of other interest groups in the business community where there is a very different narrative. Of course businesses recognise the need for some modifications to the protocol, but more and more say that the protocol is working for them and they do not want those aspects to be compromised, undermined or ditched. Those are the voices that the Government are not listening to, never mind seeking to promote.

Jim Shannon: On the programme “Countryfile” on Sunday night, a farmer from my constituency, Sam McChesney, outlined very clearly that the Northern Ireland protocol is affecting him, and his lamb and beef. He cannot sell beef cattle across the water to the mainland in the way that he once did. He said that he wants to see changes to the nitty-gritty of the bureaucracy, red tape and small print that is affecting his business, and that if this continues as it is, he will not be in business. Will the hon. Member take a deep breath and think about what Sam McChesney said, and then he will think the same as us and ask for the changes that he wants to see?

Stephen Farry: I advise the hon. Gentleman to reflect on some of the things that the Ulster Farmers Union has been saying about this aspect of the Bill. He should listen to what the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters  Association is saying—so if the gentleman he mentions is exporting meat, that is what his trade body is saying. Of course there should be no obstacle for anyone in Northern Ireland selling into Great Britain, but we are in danger of losing the ability for meat producers in Northern Ireland to sell into the Republic of Ireland and onwards into the European Union. [Interruption.] I will come to that in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to have some degree of patience.
We will also talk about the interests of the dairy sector in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman wants to reflect the views of his constituents, he will be aware that one of the major employers in his constituency is Lakeland Dairies, which, along with the wider dairy sector, is extremely exercised about this aspect of the Bill.

Jim Shannon: I have met the chief executive of Lakeland Dairies on a number of occasions, and I do so regularly, because it is a major employer in my constituency. He says that he can work with this process, and if changes to the Bill come through, he can also work with that. There are factories south of the border and north of the border. Lakeland Dairies wants a workable system and says that it can work with this. I am not sure who the hon. Member is talking to, but I talk to the chief executive regularly and he tells me that he can deal with the system and with the issues as they come forward.

Stephen Farry: We will talk about the dairy sector in much greater detail shortly. Indeed, it has given significant evidence to Committees in this Parliament. Whenever we talk about the dairy sector, it is important to bear in mind that this idea of the hon. Gentleman’s that we will end up with segregated production, north versus south, is not feasible. If that was to be introduced, the lead-in time would potentially be two to three years, and the costs would be between £200 million and £250 million, so the notion that this is an easy option is a major fallacy. Indeed, the notion that we want to spend extra money to reorientate an industry that works quite successfully at the moment is for the birds.

Colum Eastwood: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree with me and with Mike Johnston, the chief executive of the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland, that the Bill risks making rural areas poorer by cutting off £600 million of trade?

Stephen Farry: Indeed, and the dairy sector in Northern Ireland is absolutely clear. The provisions in this Bill are an existential threat to their business model, and we will come shortly to the consequences of that.

Sammy Wilson: I thank the hon. Member for giving way; he has been quite generous, but it is important that we scrutinise the amendment. Will he explain to me how the dairy sector, or whatever other sector wished to trade with the Irish Republic, would be disadvantaged if it agreed to dual regulation—in other words, if it complied with EU regulations for the products that it wished to trade with the Irish Republic? Is the EU going to say, “We will not accept your goods, even though you’ve accepted all our regulations, you’re applying those regulations and your goods are safe to enter the EU”?

Stephen Farry: I strongly encourage the right hon. Gentleman to engage with the Dairy Council and listen directly to what it is saying. The issues and complications are manifold in this respect. They come, first of all, from the inputs to the dairy sector—we are talking about the grain, the veterinary medicines—

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Stephen Farry: Let me finish the first point and then someone else can come in.
If those inputs are not compliant with EU regulations, the raw milk that is then produced cannot be accepted or certified by Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs vets as complying with annex 2 to the protocol, which sets out the various regulations that apply in that regard. Therefore, raw milk from Northern Ireland will not and cannot be accepted for processing in the rest of Ireland. A third of the milk produced in Northern Ireland currently goes south for processing, and that will be dropped.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I should just put on the record that I represent one of the largest farming constituencies in Northern Ireland; I was previously the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in Stormont; I have been one of the longest serving members of the British Veterinary Association in Northern Ireland; and, for the record, my son-in-law is one of Northern Ireland’s largest dairy farmers, so I have some knowledge of the agricultural sector.
The hon. Member has touched on the issue of veterinary products for Northern Ireland. Is it not the case that the European Union has strategically blocked the sales and advantage that would come to Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit, because it does not want Northern Ireland agriculture to be a success? Northern Ireland agricultural businesses are in direct competition with businesses in the Irish Republic, and up to 40% to 50% of all agri-medicines for veterinary products, agricultural use and pet use will be blocked at the end of this year, because the European Union wants to block it. The EU is not interested in talking or making a deal with Britain on this matter. In fact, the representative agency, the National Office of Animal Health, has said that more time is no longer required. We need this Bill to solve these matters with regard to veterinary science.

Nigel Evans: Order. I want to establish right from the outset that interventions should be brief by their very nature, not speeches in themselves. Mr Paisley, that was longer than some of the speeches I have made in this place.

Stephen Farry: I will briefly respond, and then hopefully I will make some progress. What the hon. Member has said is utter nonsense. The notion that there is some sort of conspiracy or plot to undermine the Northern Ireland agriculture sector is for the birds. The threat actually comes from this Bill and from Brexit. It does not come from the protocol; it comes from the notion of scrapping some provisions in the protocol, which are working on behalf of the sector. The sector is diverse and some  people may have a different perspective on it, but I urge Members to listen to the representative business organisations that reflect the views of their members. The Dairy Council is adamant and very vocal in this regard.

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Member is making a very good speech. It is not the EU that wants to change the rules; rather, we hear from some contenders for the Conservative leadership that they want to change the rules. They want to strip away regulation, as indeed do some members of the DUP. Is that not a concern for the agricultural sector?

Stephen Farry: Absolutely; I concur very much with what the hon. Member says. Regulation sometimes has a negative connotation, but it is there to protect everyone’s interests and it is there for often very good and valid reasons. It is noticeable that we do not have the Foreign Secretary with us today—or indeed for any stage of the Bill, apart from the first hour—even though she has been very keen to promote it, for whatever agenda she has.

Jim Shannon: It is because it is right.

Stephen Farry: If I can make some progress, clause 7 essentially introduces a dual regulatory system for regulated classes of goods to which any provision of annexe 2 to the Northern Ireland protocol applies, including manufactured goods, medicines and agri-food. It envisages businesses having a choice over the regulatory route between UK requirements and EU requirements, or both.
On the surface, that sounds benign, but it is in fact unworkable. To be clear, there is an implicit element of acceptance that there will be different regulatory regimes, and maybe standards, in the concept of a red-green lane for Northern Ireland customer final destination goods that pose no threat to the single market. It is important to acknowledge that subtlety, but we are focusing in this debate on dual regulation that covers ingredients, components and goods that may enter the single market via further processing or as a final good. More and more businesses in Northern Ireland are exporting to the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the European Union. Since Brexit, this trade has grown significantly. That is market forces in operation, reacting to changing conditions. There is nothing malign about it whatsoever.
If this dual regulation were implemented, it would have major consequences. It would create chaos in many sectors of the Northern Ireland economy and increase the risk of economic crime, including smuggling. Even the Bill itself entails uncertainty for investment decisions, never mind the implications of its full application. It would mean Northern Ireland losing access to the single market for goods, both in practice, as companies in the Republic of Ireland or the rest of the EU would see Northern Ireland products as risky, and as a matter of law.
Such moves would threaten the comparative advantage that Northern Ireland goods currently have from unfettered access to both the Great Britain market and the EU  single market. More widely, they raise the question as to how and where the interface between the UK economic zone and the EU single market will be managed. There is a commonality of consequences from the Government unilaterally trying to impose dual regulation, alongside similar measures to disapply article 5 of the protocol and annexe 2 to the protocol, and also the marginalisation of the European Court of Justice, which we will talk about tomorrow.
No doubt the Government and others will argue that GB and EU regulations will in practice be the same, just as they argued that their version of the management of movements between GB and Northern Ireland would protect the EU single market, but this neglects the fundamental point, which relates to the legal regime, in which there has to be either dynamic alignment or mutual recognition. That can be created and maintained only via negotiation, with an agreed means of enforcement. Many sectors of the Northern Ireland economy have both supply chains and sales that operate on both an east-west and a north-south basis. That can only be managed with one set of regulations.
Let us explore one particular sector in depth, the dairy sector, which a number of Members have already drawn me on. The dairy sector is heavily integrated across the island of Ireland. That reflects specialisation and economies of scale. It is an entirely sensible set of arrangements. Every year, about 800 million litres of raw milk, about a third of the entire output, goes to the Republic of Ireland for processing. There is full traceability of that milk. The milk is then often mixed with raw milk from south of the border. It can be mixed, as both Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland milk is produced to the common EU standards and, crucially, recognised as such. It then goes in to final products, or sometimes into intermediate products that come back to Northern Ireland for final processing, for example at Lakeland Dairies in the neighbouring constituency of Strangford.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the hon. Member perhaps explain how the mixing of that milk will be changed by this Bill?

Stephen Farry: The mixing of the milk will not happen, because milk from Northern Ireland will not be accepted for mixing, because—

Ian Paisley Jnr: That is unreasonable.

Stephen Farry: It is not unreasonable. It is basically common sense, because the milk cannot be certified as being in compliance with EU regulations, and therefore it will not be accepted.

Ian Paisley Jnr: But it’s coming from the same cows, being milked by the same machines.

Stephen Farry: The hon. Member may say it is coming from the same cows and the same machines. The issue here is that—

Ian Paisley Jnr: This is just nonsense—this is bureaucracy at its worst.

Nigel Evans: Order. The same noise is coming from the same mouth, as well—let us stop that, please.

Stephen Farry: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to refer to the time when his father famously said that the people of Northern Ireland may well be British,
“but our cows are Irish”,
which recognised the integration of animal health and agriculture on the island of Ireland. It was certainly a wise comment from the hon. Gentleman’s father.
Final products go right across these islands, into the European Union and further afield. The Bill is a threat to the sector in that it would allow products to enter Northern Ireland that are not produced to EU standards. The biggest issue relates to grain, around 400,000 tonnes of which are imported in Northern Ireland annually, but seeds and veterinary medicines may also cause complications. Even if the imported grain, seeds and veterinary medicines are in practice produced to the same standards as the European Union, that still misses the point in terms of the legal regime.
According to the Dairy Council, if any of those inputs were used in the production of milk, it would mean that the raw milk could not be supplied to customers in the EU, as Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs vets would not be able to sign the necessary certificates to demonstrate that the milk had been produced in accordance with EU regulations and standards. Such an outcome would pose an existential threat to the Northern Ireland dairy industry.
The notion of trying to segregate inputs such as grain or milk produced to different standards or under different legal regimes is simply not realistic. Segregation would involve separate production, storage and cleaning. Tankers may collect milk from five to 10 farms into one tanker. The sector is already very efficient and works to very tight margins of 3% to 4%. It cannot absorb the additional costs of managing such segregation, and to do so would anyway make no sense. Indeed, it would involve substantially more paperwork and red tape, something I understood Brexit was designed to cut back on.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I have listened intently to the hon. Member and I am left confused by what he has to say. As I understand it, the dual regulatory system is a voluntary one, so what is to stop the co-operatives, which dairy farmers are part of, voluntarily agreeing to follow EU regulations under this system and abide by EU rules? The farmers are sending the milk in tankers to be processed in Monaghan, so it is processed within EU territory. What happens between the milk’s leaving the farm and its arriving at the processing centre in Monaghan that makes that milk incompatible with EU standards?

Stephen Farry: I think perhaps the right hon. Member was not listening fully. The point relates to the inputs in terms of grain, seeds and veterinary medicines. That is where the particular issue is. My point is that, if people decide not to do that, the scale of the segregation that would be involved in trying to accommodate that choice would lead to costs that the sector simply cannot afford.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Farry: I have already given way to many DUP Members.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I can answer his point.

Stephen Farry: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak shortly.
The outcomes here will pose an existential threat to the Northern Ireland dairy sector. We are talking about potentially 800 million litres of milk that need to be accommodated somehow. The cows, of course, still need to be milked, and that begs the question as to where the surplus milk will go; that could pose considerable environmental challenges. It is simply not sustainable for farmers to retain animals that no longer have an economic purpose, so we could face a brutal cull of healthy cows. It would cost between £200 million and £250 million to create alternative processing capacity in Northern Ireland, and could take three years. Even if it made any sense to do so, by then the markets for Northern Ireland products would be long gone.
It is worth stressing that the island of Ireland has always been treated as a single unit for animal health. That makes huge sense, but dual regulation undermines it; there has not been dual regulation in the recent past. The same dynamic that applies to the dairy sector also applies to other aspects of agrifood, such as Northern Ireland’s very successful meat exporting industry. Any dual regulation in relation to feedstuffs and medicines undermines the ability to access the European Union in accordance with EU regulations.
Again, it is not realistic to segregate certain fields or farms for domestic Northern Ireland or Great Britain markets from those for EU markets, because—this may address the point by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson)—we will not have a situation where one farm says, “We’re only going to do Northern Ireland and Great Britain forever.”, and one says, “We are going to do the European Union.”

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Why not?

Stephen Farry: Because in a free market situation, businesses want to maximise their sales. No business wants to shut off one half of a market when it does not need to.
Overall, the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association estimates that agrifood provides £4.9 billion in terms of value added to the Northern Ireland economy and supports more than 100,000 jobs. Agrifood may be a small aspect of the economy across the United Kingdom, but it is massive in Northern Ireland, and it is worth noting that, if this Bill destroys the business model for many, there will be few alternatives for employment in many rural areas.
The same dynamic applies to manufacturing. Very few manufacturers seek to service a domestic market only. Any components in goods that are manufactured or processed in Northern Ireland that do not comply with the relevant parts of EU law will not be certified for export into the EU either for further processing or for final sale. Dual regulation may make things easier for suppliers in Great Britain supplying Northern Ireland. However, the needs of Great Britain’s suppliers would be better addressed via improved information and guidance, and of course the delivery of sustainable solutions around the red and green channel and a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—or, even better, a full UK-EU veterinary agreement.
There are strong reservations, through to outright opposition, to this proposal for dual regulation within the Northern Ireland business community, and I urge hon. Members to listen to them. The amendment therefore provides significant safeguards against dual regulation in broad terms, but also the potential to facilitate dual regulation for any set of products or sectors where it makes sense. Consultation with the Northern Ireland business community is vital, as it has the expertise and on-the-ground knowledge. Agreement with the EU is necessary, as without a proper legal regime it would not work and indeed would be self-defeating. So is the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly, since this is notionally for the good of Northern Ireland and the Assembly represents a much more balanced perspective of the political views of the people of Northern Ireland.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Just to remind everybody, if you were not here from the very beginning I am afraid you cannot make an independent speech, but you are able to intervene on others. We have a list of everybody who is here. Just before I call Mr Ellis, can I ask hon. Members who wish to contribute on this first group to indicate their intention by standing up, so we can get a general idea? Thank you very much. That will be very useful.

Michael Ellis: I begin by thanking hon. Members for their participation in the debate so far. I remind them that, while the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions, it is causing real problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and this legislation will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created.
On the clauses under scrutiny today, clause 7 makes it clear that businesses will have a choice which regulatory route to follow when supplying goods to the market in Northern Ireland. It introduces a dual regulatory regime in Northern Ireland for regulated classes of goods to which any provision of annexe 2 to the protocol applies. That will create a new option to meet UK rules, compared with the existing protocol arrangements, whereby goods are required to comply with the relevant EU rules. Where the relevant requirements allow, it will also be possible for the same product to simultaneously comply with both UK and EU sets of requirements. Current traders have no choice but to meet EU rules when supplying goods in or to Northern Ireland. This obviously deters some companies, especially those trading exclusively within the United Kingdom. We have seen numerous examples of that already. It deters them from serving Northern Ireland due to the costs and administrative burdens of meeting this EU law such as retesting, re-marking and relabelling of goods, all of which are expensive, as well as the appointment of a representative to undertake administrative duties. All that bureaucracy comes at a cost, which is unnecessary for goods that are to remain on the UK’s market.
The dual regulatory regime provides businesses across the United Kingdom with choice. If a Northern Ireland business trades north-south in the island of Ireland, it can continue to follow EU rules if it wishes and sell its  products in the EU and across the UK, because the Government have a commitment to unfettered access. However, if the model of a business is UK-focused, it can choose to follow UK rules and avoid the additional cost and burden currently applied to intra-UK trade.

Theresa Villiers: My right hon. and learned Friend is right to highlight the significant frictions on trade within the UK that the protocol has caused. That has led the courts to conclude that there is a partial suspension of the 1801 articles of the Act of Union. Will the Bill fix that problem and ensure that the Act of Union remains fully on our statute book?

Michael Ellis: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful and valid point. The Bill will ameliorate a plethora of problems that have been caused by the protocol.
As my right hon. Friend knows, by providing an alternative UK rules route to market in Northern Ireland, clause 7 protects the integrity of the UK’s internal market. Clause 8 ensures that the protocol no longer prevents a dual regime such as that introduced by clause 7. It makes provision to exclude EU law where it would prevent goods made to UK rules from being placed on the market in Northern Ireland in accordance with clause 7. It means that goods made to UK rules can be supplied in Northern Ireland in accordance with clause 7 to enable the functioning of this dual regulatory regime.
Clause 9 provides a Minister with the powers to make provisions through secondary legislation to ensure the effective working of the dual regulatory routes in Northern Ireland. The dual regulatory regime will need to take into account the results of engagement with business, which we have already undertaken and will undertake much more of, and it will need to be able to evolve over time as UK and EU regulatory regimes change. The default dual regulatory regime may also need to be amended to ensure that it works effectively for different types of goods—for example, should it be required to ensure that specific highly regulated goods regimes can function effectively. So clause 9 is needed to ensure that goods are compliant throughout the supply chain for traders operating under this dual regulatory regime, whichever route is chosen, and it will therefore safeguard the interests of consumer safety and biosecurity arrangements and maintain appropriate public health standards. The clause is essential to ensure the effective working of the dual regulatory routes and protects the integrity of the UK’s internal markets as well as the EU’s single market.

Nigel Mills: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm what the default position will be if a business has not made an election? Will it operate under EU law unless it positively chooses to use UK regulations? What will the process be for making this choice? Will someone have to file a document with an authority to say that they intend to use UK regulations when they make goods in Northern Ireland? Will there be a public register? Will it be an entirely private choice for a business? Will no one know publicly what they are doing?

Michael Ellis: The first thing to state clearly is that no business will be forced to do anything. They will not be obliged to choose one over the other. It will be up to  businesses to do that. One power we will give to Ministers in due course, when the Bill has passed, is to make regulations that will fit in most neatly with businesses’ wishes and desires.

Nigel Mills: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Michael Ellis: If I may, I will make a little more progress.
Clause 9 provides a Minister with the powers to make provisions through secondary legislation to ensure the effective working of the dual regulatory routes in Northern Ireland.
I will move on to clause 10, conscious as I am of the Second Deputy Chairman’s admonition about speed. The clause defines the types of regulatory activity covered by the dual regulatory regime established in the Bill. This provides clarity on interpretation of the Bill’s provisions in relation to the dual regulatory regime and makes the scope of that regime clear.
Clause 10(4) provides that a Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make provision about the meaning of “regulation of goods” in this Bill, and that includes changing the effect of other provisions of the clause. We want to ensure that the sale of goods made to UK rules in Northern Ireland is not prohibited due to a particular aspect of regulation falling outside the meaning of “regulation of goods” in clause 7. So the power ensures that goods will be able to benefit from the dual regulatory regime.

Ian Paisley Jnr: This issue is very important because, before January 2021, goods travelling from GB to Northern Ireland had to fulfil four criteria to be loaded on to a lorry and transported to shops or outlets in Northern Ireland. Since January 2021 there are 15 compliance points, including heavy paperwork responsibilities. Is the point not that those matters will now be removed and we will be back to where we were in 2021—with frictionless trade in the UK?

Michael Ellis: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and succinct point.
Clause 11 gives Ministers appropriate powers to ensure that the regulatory regime in Northern Ireland operates for goods in any given sector, ranging from ball bearings and ice cream to lamp posts, gas cookers and children’s toys—myriad different items, but also intermediate goods such as chemicals. All are regulated in different fashions. We want to ensure that they can all operate effectively. So the powers in clause 11, which I know are controversial in the eyes of some hon. Members, allow a Minister to prescribe a single regulatory route for specific sectors, including a UK-only route with no application of EU law, for example. This can also apply to part or all of a category of goods or to some or all of a regulatory route. We consider the clause vital in ensuring that the dual regulatory regime can be tailored to the needs of industry and ensure the smooth running of the new regime for all sectors.

Hilary Benn: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Ellis: I will give way, but I am just about to come on to the amendments, so the right hon. Gentleman may wish to wait.

Hilary Benn: It is on the point that the Minister just raised. If I heard him correctly, he just said that the Government were taking a power to prescribe which regulatory route should be chosen. Earlier, he said that it would be entirely a matter for businesses to determine which they chose. Just so the House is clear, the Minister is saying that it is a free choice unless the Government decide that it is not a free choice.

Michael Ellis: No. Businesses will not be obliged to follow any particular route. They will not be forced to follow either UK or EU regulations. It is a choice, and I should be able to expand on that later.
Amendments 44 and 45 are in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). As I have said before, the Government are engaging broadly on the issues created by the protocol with stakeholder groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the UK and internationally. I have been to Belfast in recent weeks to discuss this with some industries. We will give plenty of notice to those affected. The clauses need to provide stakeholders with certainty that the Government will swiftly deliver the solutions that we have outlined to the problems that the protocol is causing.
Our preference remains to reach a negotiated outcome with the EU. I emphasise that our door remains open. We need a lasting solution to these issues to restore stability in Northern Ireland and a working Northern Ireland Assembly based on the consent of the communities. Her Majesty’s Government have made proposals that would address the issues with the protocol. So far, I am sorry to say, the European Union has not been willing to agree to those, but there is no reason why it could not do so. We hope that it changes its mind. We are always open to discussions, and we want a shared solution—I cannot be clearer than that. However, amendments 44 and 45 risk tying the Government’s hands behind their back. On consent, I respectfully point out that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting at the moment. It is exactly because of the breakdown of the institutions in Northern Ireland that this Bill is needed. We need to see the restoration of the institutions as quickly as possible. Further to that, I confirmed previously to the House that we hope the institutions will be restored soon and that it will be possible for the Northern Ireland Executive to bring forward, for example, a legislative consent motion. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North Down to withdraw the amendments.

Claire Hanna: We have been spun the narrative that this is about the consent and the engagement of Northern Ireland. Although, of course, businesses are up for ways to ease the frictions imposed by Brexit, these provisions are far in excess of anything that anybody has asked for.
On the specific issue of restoring the Assembly, it is very vague as to what it will take for the Democratic Unionist party to go back in. Has the Minister any understanding of what the bottom line is for those people who walk around with scarves around their faces and create the protests that the Northern Ireland Office seems so engaged in? Do we think that they will happily accept green and red lanes, or will that be the next problem?

Michael Ellis: May I put it this way? The Sewel convention applies to this Bill, as it does to all Bills of the UK Parliament which intersect with devolved competence. I respectfully point out that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting at the moment. It is exactly because of the breakdown of the institutions in Northern Ireland that we are where we are right now and this Bill is actually needed. We need to see the restoration of the institutions as soon as possible. I hope that goes some way towards answering the hon. Lady’s question.

Claire Hanna: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Ellis: Forgive me, but I must make some progress. I am sure that there will be another opportunity to intervene.
Let me turn to amendment 36, in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I addressed this point previously, so I shall be brief. It would potentially circumscribe the ability to design dual regulatory routes under clause 9 to preserve the unity of the UK’s internal market. Given that there are more than 200 pieces of goods regulation applied by the protocol, those powers are needed to ensure that the regime can function effectively in practice for each class of goods. The dual regulatory regime is necessary to remedy disruption to GB-NI trade, which will only worsen as the EU and UK rules diverge over the course of time. The arrangements will also need to be updated over time to reflect changes in UK and EU regulations, so Ministers will need appropriate discretion to make policy decisions in doing so. The right hon. Gentleman may well not agree with me, but I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to amendment 28, also tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham, who I do not think is in his place. The Government have engaged broadly on the issues created by the protocol with stakeholder groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, as well in the rest of the UK and internationally. As the House will know, the Bill provides specific powers to establish a new regime in Northern Ireland, which addresses the issues with the current operation of the protocol. We are engaging with stakeholders on the detail of how those powers are to be used and will give plenty of notice to those affected.
The Government have already begun a detailed programme of engagement to inform the specific design of the regime in Northern Ireland that will be created by this Bill. Furthermore, clause 9 is designed to provide stakeholders in Northern Ireland with certainty that the Government will deliver the solutions that we have outlined to the problems the protocol is causing. It is essential that this power can be used quickly if needed. Although in normal cases the Government will engage with stakeholder groups in Northern Ireland, and already are engaging with them, there may be occasions when the urgency of a situation means that the Government need to act swiftly. The amendment risks tying the Government’s hands behind their back.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister note that, while the Opposition are now asking for an economic assessment of the protocol Bill, they did not seek any such economic assessment before they voted for the protocol? Even when the economic consequences  were evident, they then still pursued the path of supporting the protocol. It does seem a bit hypocritical to ask for an economic assessment of this Bill while ignoring the economic impact of the protocol, which they support.

Michael Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and it is one with which I tend to agree.
The full details of the new regime will be set out in and alongside regulations made under the Bill, and that includes economic impacts where appropriate. The regulations will be the product of engagement with business. We are going to talk to people to ensure that the detail of the new regime is as smooth and as operable as possible. That is what we are getting on with now. The House will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations in the usual fashion, under the normal parliamentary procedures. An additional requirement for the Government to lay an assessment and a report each time, which is what this amendment asks for, would clearly not be necessary. That is why I ask the right hon. Member not to press the amendment.
Let me move on to new clause 13 in the name the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). I argue that this new clause is unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause would create a statutory obligation for the UK Government to publish, at least quarterly, what steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to promote, uphold, support and facilitate dual access to the British market and European markets. The Government already publish a host of information on trade, and it is not necessary, in my submission, to duplicate existing publications on a quarterly basis and lay them before Parliament. The dual regulatory regime provides businesses across the UK with choice. If a Northern Ireland-based business trades north-south on the island of Ireland, then they can continue, as now, to follow EU rules and sell their products in the EU and across the UK, because of the Government’s commitment to unfettered access. But if their business model is UK-focused, they can choose to follow UK rules and benefit from the opportunities afforded there. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.
Finally, let me turn to new clauses 14 and 15 in the name of the hon. Member for Foyle. These new clauses are, in some aspects, unnecessary, and, in other aspects, inappropriate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, article 14(b) of the protocol already requires the specialised committee to
“examine proposals concerning the implementation and application of this Protocol from the North-South Ministerial Council and North-South Implementation bodies set up under the 1998 Agreement”.
That is an entirely appropriate and valuable role. The hon. Gentleman’s new clauses, by contrast, would create a statutory obligation for the UK Government to “support” proposals relating to the regulation of goods made by the North-South Ministerial Council and other North-South Implementation bodies.
That would cede control over the UK Government’s stance in the Joint Committee to a council on which the Irish Government—the Government of an EU member state—sits. The hon. Member can surely see that this would be wholly inappropriate. In any case, as part of our “New Decade, New Approach” commitments, the Government already ensure that representatives from  the Northern Ireland Executive are invited to meetings of the Joint Committee, which discusses Northern Ireland specific matters, and these are also attended by the Irish Government.

Claire Hanna: Does the Minister agree that the North-South Ministerial Council and other architecture of the Good Friday agreement provide solutions to addressing some of the issues around democratic deficit and input of civic society? Does he acknowledge that the North-South Ministerial Council is not currently operating because strand one and strand two of the agreement are being held to ransom by the DUP?

Michael Ellis: I do not accept the characterisation of the hon. Lady’s point.
The aspects of new clauses 14 and 15 obliging the Government to lay reports before Parliament are also unnecessary. The Government have already committed to—and do—lay written ministerial statements in Parliament before and after each meeting of the Joint Committee. We also provide explanatory memorandums on matters to be discussed at Joint Committee meetings. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Foyle not to press new clauses 14 and 15.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) asked in an intervention about businesses having a choice. Businesses will, of course, have a choice by default. He asked about processes. We are engaging with businesses. We may need to tailor regulatory routes in some cases, but businesses will have a choice by default.
To conclude, the Bill on which this honourable House is spending up to 18 hours in Committee provides a comprehensive and durable solution to the existing problems with the Northern Ireland protocol by giving businesses a choice over which regulatory route to follow when placing goods on the market in Northern Ireland. I therefore recommend that the clauses under consideration stand part of the Bill.

Peter Kyle: It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship once again, Mr Evans.
I shall start by responding to a point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). To clarify, the Labour party and I voted against the protocol when it was before the House. In fact, we walked through the Lobbies together on this issue. I am surprised he does not remember such a memorable occasion—it is quite a rarity, it must be admitted. I hope that when he comes to speak, he will correct the record, because we have a good relationship. It is one that I value and that I hope will continue.

Sammy Wilson: For the record, will the hon. Gentleman tell us the stance of his party on the protocol today?

Peter Kyle: First, I am slightly disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to correct the record from his previous intervention.
My stance and that of the Labour party on the protocol is very clear: it needs to evolve, to change and to be improved, and that should be done by all lawful means. This Bill is not lawful. Of course, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, said on the Floor of the House just a few days  ago that in her opinion it was unlawful. We heard from a former Attorney General in the last day of debate that he felt it was unlawful.
For that reason, the Labour party believes that although we voted against the protocol in the first place, now that it is in domestic statute and part of an international treaty, the responsible thing to do is to negotiate a way forward. What we cannot do is repeat the debates of previous days. We need to stick to the clauses before us. Today, we are talking about—

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Kyle: Of course I will give way, but I will not rehearse the debates of the previous two days.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s giving way. The issue of lawfulness, which he put on the agenda today, has to be addressed. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is the only Committee to have taken evidence on the lawfulness, or otherwise, of the protocol under international law. For the record, it was stated:
“no, it does not violate international law. It does not violate the protocol.”
I have heard people who should know better saying that it does, but I am afraid they are wrong. They are obviously not international lawyers. The evidence given to this House by the emeritus professor of public international law at the University of Edinburgh, who advises the Government and the Opposition, says that it does not break the law. Why does the hon. Gentleman persist with this inaccurate point?

Peter Kyle: Again, I will not repeat the debate from the first day of Committee, when all those issues were explored in detail. It is a shame to hear the hon. Gentleman say that of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, whom I know he respects. She said in the House that she asked herself three questions:
“First, do I consider it to be legal… Secondly, will it achieve its aims? Thirdly, does it…maintain the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world? My answer to all three questions is no.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 63.]

Stephen Farry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Kyle: I am going to move on, because we need to stick to the clauses before us. I will give way once, but I promise, Mr Evans, that I will then crack on with the business before us.

Stephen Farry: Hopefully it will be a very helpful intervention. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that it is important for Members to reflect fully on the evidence that was given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee? The last time the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made reference to it, at least one of the people who gave evidence expressed concern, along with other international lawyers, that what was said did not fully reflect the subtlety of the arguments put before the Committee, which were not as simplistic as the hon. Gentleman said.

Peter Kyle: I am very grateful for that intervention. For the record, I think that all the interventions I receive here are helpful. They are certainly in the spirit of the debate that this place exists for. I believe  that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I am grateful to him for setting the record straight so that we can move forward.
Today, we are considering clauses 7 to 11, which deal with the dual regulatory regime the Government want to set up for Northern Ireland. Amendment 28 would require a Minister to carry out an economic impact assessment and a consultation before making any regulations for a dual regulatory regime. Some parts of the Bill indicate that the Government have been listening to problems that businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland are facing. In those areas, the Labour party is clear that the EU must show more flexibility to deliver the progress that businesses in Northern Ireland need.
However, in proceeding with the dual regulatory regime, the Government demonstrate that they are ignoring the voices of most businesses. We saw that in the Government’s press release about Second Reading. It revealed, alarmingly, that the Government had only just begun
“a series of structured engagements with the business community, to discuss and gather views on the detailed implementation of the Bill.”
That had happened in recent days—not recent weeks, months or years, but in recent days. Businesses I know that are taking part in the process have asked for a commitment from the Government that they will publish the results in a report. I hope that the Minister will give that assurance from the Dispatch Box today.
Instead of taking the time to develop a policy that works for businesses, the Foreign Secretary is doing what the Government have done from the start: they have been so preoccupied negotiating with the various factions in their own party that they neglect to engage meaningfully with the stakeholders and partners who are the only ones able to unlock the progress our country needs.
Declan Billington, the chief executive of John Thompson and Sons animal feed manufacturers and co-chair of the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association, said, when asked for his assessment of the proposals,
“I cannot actually answer the question because when I say, ‘Lift the bonnet under the bill and show me the detailed policies that we can engage with,’ I hear conversations about co-design and, therefore, I cannot benchmark.”
This is absurd. Instead of coming up with serious proposals, the Government are simply asking businesses to do the hard graft for them. In a damning assessment, the trade expert Sam Lowe described the proposed dual regulatory regime as
“a solution looking for a problem: it is near-impossible to find a business in Northern Ireland advocating for it.”
There are many reasons businesses are not calling for a dual regulatory system. High on the list is the shift in the burden of responsibility for ensuring that goods do not enter the EU off the Government agencies and on to the 75,000 individual Northern Ireland businesses. That might work for retailers, but exporters and businesses with highly integrated all-island supply chains see it as an almost existential threat. Again, the Government have been clear that their preferred outcome for the protocol is a negotiated solution. Such unserious proposals undermine the common ground in other areas.
The dissent in Tory ranks complicates the situation further. Several prominent Conservatives, including the Attorney General, have said that they want the dual regulatory regime to be scrapped in favour of mutual enforcement down the line. The irony of asking for mutual enforcement is that it requires absolute trust between the UK and the EU. It would take serious negotiation and deep good faith to achieve it. It is pure fantasy to think that we can get there with this Bill, which unilaterally rewrites the agreement we have.

Hilary Benn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Kyle: It would be a pleasure.

Hilary Benn: The dual regulatory regime raises more questions than it answers. If I understand the Government’s position correctly, a firm can decide to operate under one regime or the other. Say, for the sake of argument, that UK regulation banned a particular ingredient for a food product, but it was not banned by the EU. Is it my hon. Friend’s understanding of the Government’s proposals that it would be legal for a firm in Northern Ireland to sell that product with the banned ingredient in the rest of the UK, so long as the company claimed it was operating under EU rules?

Peter Kyle: I am always very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his interventions in these debates; they always add a great deal. He has, with his forensic mind, picked a situation that shows one of the many absurdities thrown up by this Bill. It will, in practice, mean a huge amount of complexity for businesses across Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Some businesses will find it impossible to answer the questions he has raised, and will be deterred from trading on current terms, simply because they are worried about infractions from one of the markets or the other, or indeed about how the two interact. That is an area that I will move on to.
I listened with great interest to the exchanges with Northern Ireland Members a few moments ago about the dairy trade, and to the interventions by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I am straying into the same territory now as I quote the representative body for the dairy sector. I encourage all Members to read the written evidence that the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland submitted to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee just last week. This is a hugely important industry for Northern Ireland. There are over 3,200 dairy farming businesses there, which contribute at least £1.5 billion a year to the economy. It is very good to know that the hon. Member and his family are part of that success for Northern Ireland.
In the words of the Dairy Council,
“The NI Protocol Bill represents a threat to the IoI”—
the island of Ireland—
dairy value chain through the proposal for a Dual Regulatory Regime…which will open the potential for products used on dairy farms in the production of milk to be imported from GB without having to adhere to EU standards.
The IoI dairy value chain operates on the basis that NI and RoI milk are produced to the same EU standards”.
It also stated:
“Annually around 800m litres of milk, about one third of total NI production, moves to RoI for processing. NI does not have sufficient processing capacity to process all the milk produced in  NI, so anything that damages or limits the dairy value chain would have serious consequences for the NI dairy sector.”
At present, Northern Ireland vets issue certification that the Republic of Ireland vets accept for each consignment of milk.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the hon. Member give way?

Peter Kyle: After I have made this point, I will, because I am always interested in the hon. Member’s views on this issue.
What the Government are proposing would impose additional layers of bureaucracy to prove that every step of the milk processing complied with EU standards. This would be disastrous for the dairy industry; it would require segregation of milk at every stage and push the sector into negative growth in Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On that technical point, as the hon. Member will accept, the protocol is an example of red tape being used to tie up commerce. Given what he has just said, does he accept that a commercial opportunity is being set aside, and farmers are not being allowed to take it?

Peter Kyle: The hon. Member talks about what I said, but all I did was quote the words of the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland; I was not expressing my views. When I talk about an industry in Northern Ireland, I of course try extremely hard to listen to the people on the frontline who represent that industry. Of course I take into consideration his experience, and the frontline experiences of his family.
My amendment 28 says, “Let’s listen to those on the frontline and get the Government to do an assessment before we do something that could have radical consequences for the sector.” I understand that the hon. Member has first-hand experience of talking to people, and of living in a family of people, who are affected by this. Expert opinion fed to me contradicts that view. What is the logical conclusion? Before we move forward with a set of regulations that could ride roughshod over the dairy industry in Northern Ireland, let us take the time to make an assessment. We should have an impact assessment, lay it before the House, and debate it before we pass a law that could radically impact the industry.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Member has to be very careful in listening to bodies that claim to be representative of an industry; those at the top of the body very often have their own agenda. Let us look at the logic of his argument. A third of Northern Ireland’s milk goes for processing in the Irish Republic. In other words, some businesses in the Irish Republic are dependent on an awful lot of milk, which they cannot produce in their country, from Northern Ireland. If we have a system of dual regulation that ensures that the milk is as safe tomorrow as it was yesterday, and as safe after the Bill goes through as it was before the Bill, does he not think that businesses and Government in the Irish Republic will accept that Northern Ireland milk is essential for those industries, and so would not seek to put a barrier in its way?

Peter Kyle: The point I am making is quite clear. There is a difference of opinion here, and I think it is unwise to reject out of hand the representative body for the dairy sector in Northern Ireland. Let us engage with  that. I have been very respectful of the right hon. Gentleman’s view, but I make the point that that was the second intervention from him, and I did ask him to correct the record in relation to his previous intervention, when he said something that was categorically untrue about my voting in the past. I hope that when he makes his next intervention he will do the right and honourable thing, which is to correct the record unequivocally and recognise that I voted in the polar opposite way to the way that he said I did.
The best way for us to resolve these issues is to have an independent assessment of the impact on different sectors that might be negatively affected—or certainly affected—by the legislation. It would be irresponsible not to, because there is such a difference of opinion.

Stephen Farry: Talking of putting things on the record, would the shadow Secretary of State join me in standing up for the credibility of Mike Johnston, who leads the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland? I stress that no one here has any evidence whatsoever that he has any motivation other than standing up for the interests of his industry.

Peter Kyle: I am certainly very grateful for the intervention, and to the witness for giving the benefit of his insight, wisdom and experience to a Select Committee of the House—insight gained from his membership of his organisation. All submissions to this place are welcome, and must be received in the spirit in which they were given to the House. However, it is the role of Government to deliver, and I urge the Government and Ministers to deliver in the way that has the least chance of negatively impacting a sector as important as the dairy sector in Northern Ireland. We are talking about the dairy sector, but it is just one of many sectors that could be negatively impacted if the Government get the implementation of the Bill wrong.
The Dairy Council for Northern Ireland estimates that processing all the milk that Northern Ireland produces would take three years and up to £250 million of investment. Let us be clear that we are debating a proposal that would cripple a part of the economy that supplies basic consumer goods and is working well. The proposals would take a wrecking ball to this key sector in the middle of a cost of living crisis, wreaking havoc on businesses and driving up prices. It would be a different debate if the Government were saying that they are introducing a dual regulatory regime because they do not want Northern Ireland to have dual market access any more, and this was the first step towards that, but that is not what Ministers are saying.
On Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary said that this regime
“cuts the processes that drive up cost for business”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 40-41]
and allows business to choose which market they want to use. That is the exact opposite of what businesses are saying that a dual regulatory regime would achieve in practice. It is self-explanatory that moving to a dual regime would lead to more administration. The clue is in the name: dual regulation, under a dual regime, means double the number of processes that a business could encounter.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I fear the shadow Secretary of State is approaching this on the premise that the dual regulatory system will be compulsory. As I understand the Government’s proposal, it is for each business—and sector, indeed, if it so wishes—to decide whether it wants to opt in or opt out of this system. Businesses and sectors could decide to opt into the UK system only or the EU system only, or both. The idea that every business and sector will have to adopt both sets of regulations is simply not true.

Peter Kyle: I am grateful for the intervention. I make two simple points: first, I used the word “could” encounter, not “would” or “be compelled” to encounter. Secondly, let us take a business that might be operating in both markets. It would be forced to undertake the bureaucracy required by both markets. He says that is optional. Of course it is, but it is not optimal if a business that is operating perfectly contently and successfully—perhaps even growing, and creating more wealth, opportunity and jobs in Northern Ireland—wants to withdraw from one of the markets just to avoid the paperwork. It would not be forced; I understand that. It would be voluntary, but let us not kid ourselves that withdrawing from one of the markets simply to avoid bureaucracy or red tape would not have any impact on jobs, prosperity and wealth in Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Northern Ireland does not operate in a vacuum. A business in my constituency is no different from a business in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. If a business in his constituency wants to sell goods in the EU single market, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that business can apply British standards, even if they are different from EU standards, and sell those goods in the EU without complying with EU standards? Of course not. Businesses in Northern Ireland have to make commercial decisions. If they want to sell goods to the EU, they must comply with EU standards. If they want to sell goods in the UK, they must comply with British standards. That is the way the commercial world works. That is the way it is regulated. Let us not pretend that we are creating a new regime here for Northern Ireland businesses, and that if we want to sell goods both in the UK and the EU, we need only one set of standards. That is not the case.

Peter Kyle: I am not quite sure where to start with that intervention. The right hon. Gentleman suggests we take the instance of my community in Hove and Portslade, on the sunny Sussex coastline. If businesses there are exporting to the EU, then of course they have to do all the additional red tape that has been imposed by the particular Brexit deal negotiated by this Government, but they do not have to do so if they are selling locally. This is the problem we have at the moment: we are suggesting a dual regime for the domestic Northern Ireland market, so it is not the same. Those who trade within Sussex—there is such fantastic produce grown, compiled, sold and retailed there—would not expect to have two regulatory regimes forced on them in Sussex. I do not think we should conflate exporters with those who produce for the domestic market. That is the problem we face in Northern Ireland; producers there are certainly being forced, in that situation, to make a choice. I am not suggesting that anybody is being forced   to trade under both regimes. They can unilaterally decide to withdraw from one of the markets and perhaps downscale their business. But let us move on.

Hilary Benn: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being most generous. The argument has been put by the Minister and others in the Chamber that businesses in Northern Ireland would be entirely free to choose whether they use one regulatory system or the other, but according to the explanatory notes, clause 11
“allows a Minister to prescribe whether the dual regime should no longer apply to a specific class of regulated goods. It also provides a power for a Minister of the Crown to modify the different regulatory routes available in Northern Ireland.”
In other words, the Government are taking for themselves the power to turn off the choice that they advocated that businesses should have, as an argument for voting for the proposals.

Peter Kyle: Again, my right hon. Friend makes a fundamental point about the weakness of the Bill. It is basically a one-sentence Bill. Paragraph (a) in clause 1 states that the Bill
“provides that certain specified provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol does not have effect in the United Kingdom”.
That is the heart of the Bill. The rest of the Bill is, as he says, powers for Ministers to act as they will into the future. That is a fundamental problem. We have heard time and again throughout the passage of the Bill that it repatriates the most enormous powers not to British traders and not to the regions of Britain and Northern Ireland, but to Ministers directly. It creates huge uncertainty. As I said earlier, businesses recognise that they cannot prepare, because they do not know how Ministers will implement the powers they have into the future. At the moment, all they are saying is that they want those powers to make use of as they see fit.
Let us move on. If goods in Northern Ireland can be made to GB standards or EU standards, a Northern Ireland manufacturer with a presence in both markets could find themselves having to make goods to both standards because of customer demands. That will all have to be administered by a combination of Westminster and Stormont. There is also the issue of allowing businesses to continue to have market choice. According to the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, the biggest issue with a dual regulatory regime is that it causes significant reputational risks to Northern Ireland exports sold into the EU market, which could damage access. Our amendment 28 is simple. It would require the following:
“Before making regulations under this section, a Minister of the Crown must carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed regulations, and conduct a consultation on the proposed regulations with any stakeholders whom the Minister of the Crown considers appropriate.”
A report on those exercises would then have to be laid before Parliament. It should not be controversial to ask the Government to do that before proceeding with proposals which could have such a devastating impact on businesses in Northern Ireland.

Richard Thomson: I rise to speak to, or at least draw attention to, amendments 19 and 22 in my name, and to speak to the other amendments that have been discussed.
On amendments 19 and 22, I do not intend to rehearse in any depth the arguments I put forward on day one, except to say that even if the Bill was not at risk of being in breach of international law, in our view it still gives Ministers far too much power to proceed without adequate reference back to this place and opportunities for scrutiny by Members. I make that point again for the consideration of the Treasury Bench; no doubt they will instantly dispose of it, but nobody can accuse me of not having made it again.
On amendments 44 and 45, it seems to me entirely reasonable that Ministers should be required to consult appropriately on the impact of dual routes, and to make sure there is an agreement with the EU and the option to choose between dual routes so that the dual routes procedure can operate as intended. It also seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to refer back to the directly elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in the Assembly on how they might wish such a mechanism to go ahead or to work, so we are supportive of amendments 44 and 45.
On amendment 28, ensuring that an economic impact assessment is carried out before proceeding with a dual regulatory regime seems to me to be the very essence of common sense. If only we had carried out a thorough economic assessment before stepping into this morass in the first place, it might have given people some pause for thought.
Finally—I said I would be brief—new clause 15 would require the House to be informed timeously of the details of discussions in the UK-EU Joint Committee when they involved regulation of goods in connection with the protocol, and to be given details of the regard that has been offered to the strand 1 and strand 2 arrangements. That seems a perfectly sensible way to ensure that consent is in place and that the views of all relevant stakeholders have been properly taken into consideration before such a momentous step is taken.
We entirely support those provisions and, if they are selected for separate decision, we intend to walk through the Lobby in support of them.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the various amendments. I say to my honourable friends and colleagues from the Alliance party and the Social Democratic and Labour party that, in all their contributions to debates on the Bill, I have yet to hear once any acknowledgment of the impact of the protocol on the Unionist community in Northern Ireland and its sense of identity, including its sense of identity within the United Kingdom. There has been no recognition from either party of the importance of these issues for the people I represent and how that has contributed significantly to the breakdown of power sharing in Northern Ireland and the breakdown of the North South Ministerial Council. If we are going to find a solution, I have to say, with respect to my colleagues, that simply focusing in on what I accept are important points while ignoring the elephant in the room will not take us anywhere close to finding a solution that restores political stability in Northern Ireland.

Claire Hanna: I think Members across the Chamber would concur, and Hansard will certainly show, that I and others are acutely aware of the discombobulating  and disturbing impact on many of a Unionist background. We have put on record many times our concerns about the symbolic effect of borders, which is why we worked so hard and for so many years to ensure that there is a borderless solution. We regret that not all parties joined us in that fight. Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that many of us are concerned that his party, in legitimate pursuit of the rights of those with a strong Unionist identity, utterly ignores the majority of people who support the protocol in some form and is disregarding the majority of people in Northern Ireland—a comfortable majority—who wish the Northern Ireland Assembly to be up and running and who wish MLAs, MPs and others to find a negotiated, not a unilateral, solution to this impasse?

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I welcome the intervention from the hon. Member, for whom who I have a high regard. It is important that she placed on record a recognition of the concerns of Unionists, but she mentioned the word “majority” at least twice, and I find that interesting. She will no doubt scold me for quoting John Hume, as she did my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who is with us this afternoon. I have said on the record that even though I would have had many differences with John Hume, I came to respect and understand his very clear view that in a divided society such as Northern Ireland, consensus, not majority rule, is the way forward. As a Unionist, I accepted that any political institutions that were to operate in Northern Ireland and that could command broad support had to operate on the basis of that consensus. The consensus has broken down because of the protocol’s impact on the Unionist community.

Claire Hanna: Does the right hon. Member acknowledge that it feels duplicitous to many people for him and his colleagues to say repeatedly that the protocol requires cross-community consent but that Brexit does not—that the protocol means that this Bill is fine because it has a Unionist party’s consent, even though all the other parties, representing a number of other traditions, do not support it? Does he acknowledge that there is a bit of give and take? Many Unionists would like this argument to end, but does he understand that you cannot in the same breath make the argument for consensus while completely discounting every single elected representative of a nationalist or other identity?

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I have no desire whatever to replace Unionist discontentment with nationalist discontentment in Northern Ireland. I recognise that a solution to these issues must be capable of commanding broad support and of dealing with the concerns that arise, not just for Unionists. If, for a moment, we can set aside the process—I think that is what incurs the wrath of some about how the Government are going about this—and look the Government’s proposed solution, I believe we will see that it is capable of addressing the concerns of the European Union and its need to protect the single market and its integrity. What it does for Unionists, however, is to respect the integrity of the UK internal market.
When I hear the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) explaining his opposition to the Bill—I use this only as an example; I am not saying that it is the totality of his opposition—by saying that because one  third of milk production in Northern Ireland crosses the border to be processed, we cannot find a solution that respects the integrity of the UK internal market, I am simply at a loss to understand the logic of that argument, because it completely ignores the right of this United Kingdom to regulate its own market. We do have that right, as a nation. We took that right upon ourselves when, in a referendum, the majority in this country voted to leave the European Union. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Belfast South makes. If we could turn the clock back, she would argue, no doubt, that in such a referendum there should be a need for cross-community consent in Northern Ireland, but the fact is that that did not exist—it was not argued for at the time—and the result of the referendum stands.
Therefore, we must make the best of this, but the best of it is not the protocol, because the protocol seriously inhibits the ability of the United Kingdom to regulate its internal market. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), made the point that it goes beyond that: it actually undermines the Union itself. In respect of article 6 of the Acts of Union, which gives every citizen in this United Kingdom the right to trade freely within our own country, stating that there shall be no barriers to trade between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, the protocol undermines the Union. It undermines Northern Ireland’s ability, as part of the United Kingdom, to trade freely with the rest of our own country.

Claire Hanna: The SDLP is acutely aware of the sensitivity of people’s identity, but does the right hon. Member agree that having customs checks
“doesn’t mean that you change the constitutional status of a part of the United Kingdom,”
and does he agree that he said that on 3 March 2020?

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Absolutely. The customs checks I was referring to were in the context of proposals that the Government had introduced in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—and that they proposed to introduce in the Finance Bill—which would have removed the need for customs checks on goods circulating within the United Kingdom. My point to the BBC at the time was that customs checks on goods moving into the EU do not represent constitutional change, but what does represent constitutional change, as confirmed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal, is placing those checks on goods staying within the United Kingdom.
My party and I have been consistent on this point. If the hon. Lady refers back to the speeches made when the protocol was debated in this House, she will see that the view of the Democratic Unionist party has been clear from the outset that the protocol, if unchanged, would threaten Northern Ireland’s place within the UK and impact our ability to trade with the rest of our country, and that we opposed the notion that we could have customs checks on goods moving within the UK internal market. That has consistently been our position, because that alters our constitutional status as part of the United Kingdom.
I believe that what the Government propose is a serious endeavour to correct that problem and address that difficulty, to ensure that we can regulate our own  internal market and that where goods are moving within the United Kingdom and staying within the United Kingdom, they are not subject to customs checks, which, in our opinion, are unnecessary.
As the Minister rightly indicated, clause 7 introduces a system of dual regulation in Northern Ireland. I will not repeat what I said to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), but I listened very carefully to what he had to say. If a business in his constituency wants to export goods to the United States of America, it must comply with US standards. It is the same for businesses in any part of the United Kingdom wanting to export to the EU: they must comply with EU standards.
I will use the example of the dairy sector to set out what is different for Northern Ireland. Farmers in my constituency who are part of the Lakeland Dairies co-operative have their milk collected in tankers at their farms in County Down and County Antrim and driven to the processing plant across the border. Very often, that milk comes back to Northern Ireland and is sold on our supermarket shelves, so we need a bespoke solution for the dairy sector. Dual regulation does not prevent that from happening. In fact, it enables it, because although one third of milk crosses the border, two thirds of it remains in Northern Ireland for processing. It is as if we are ignoring the reality that the majority of farmers in Northern Ireland do not send their milk across the border to be processed; it stays in Northern Ireland, and much of it is sold in Great Britain. No provision has been made for that.
This is our difficulty, and this is why the concept of dual regulation is important. Dual regulation is a compromise—a compromise between my desire for British standards to apply throughout the United Kingdom and the desire of some in business, and political parties from Northern Ireland, for us to take measures to protect cross-border trade. My party wants to ensure that we do protect cross-border trade, and I believe the concept of dual regulation allows us to do that, although we need to understand how it will work in practice for each sector. I do not believe it is beyond the capacity of the dairy sector to present the Government with proposals for a bespoke solution based on this concept that will work for all dairy farmers—not just those who sell their milk across the border, but those who have their milk processed within Northern Ireland and want to sell it into Great Britain.
I think that where there is a will, there is a way. We are happy to engage with Mike Johnston—whom I respect—and the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland and to talk this through, and I welcome the fact that the Government are now engaged in consultation with business. I do not pretend, as a politician, that I have all the answers—I recognise that there will be some difficulties—but let us identify those difficulties and find solutions, because it is in finding solutions that we will move towards the restoration of political and economic stability in Northern Ireland and give businesses the certainty that they are crying out for.
I do not see how the choice brought about by a system of dual regulation will harm the Northern Ireland economy in the long run. In fact, I think it will help us to maximise the potential of dual market access, and  will enable businesses and sectors to make choices that constitute commercial decisions. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made an important point. Yes, regulation is important, but in the end, business thrives on its ability to make commercial decisions, and to take advantage of what my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) described as the commercial opportunities.
Of course regulations change, but one of the difficulties I have is that the Northern Ireland dairy sector is now subject to regulations over which I, as a representative of many farmers in my constituency, have no say. When my dairy farmers come to me and say, “Jeffrey, we are concerned about these regulations coming from the EU”, where do I go with that? Do I go to the Minister in Stormont and say, “There is a problem here”? Yes, I can do that, but the Minister has no control over how those EU regulations are drawn up, and it is the same with the Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs here at Westminster. There is a democratic deficit that needs to be addressed, and we believe that there are solutions in what the Government are proposing which will help to take care of not only the regulatory issue, but the democratic deficit that flows from it.
Clause 9, as the Minister said, is designed to give effect to the aspects of the Bill that will require further regulation. Let me say to the Minister and his colleagues that I think it important for both business and politics in Northern Ireland for the draft regulations to be published as soon as the initial consultations with the business sector have been completed. It would be helpful to see what the Government’s thinking is, in respect of the schemes that they intend to introduce—not least those relating to the green and red lane concept—but also in respect of matters such as dual regulation. We could then look at the regulations and suggest changes, or the industry and business sectors could suggest changes, and hopefully we would come up with solutions that worked within the concept of the Bill’s aim of delivering solutions to the problems created by the protocol. I therefore urge the Government to publish the draft regulations at the earliest stage possible.
Let me now turn to the amendments tabled by both the Alliance party and the SDLP. While I understand where they are coming from, I tend to agree with the Minister. I think that much of this is unnecessary, and that we can work out much of the detail when we see the regulations. We would certainly not be in favour of fettering the Government in respect of their ability to regulate the UK internal market by requiring them to seek permission from the EU every time they wanted to change the way in which they regulate it. I would not expect the EU to accept the UK Government having a veto over how the EU regulates its internal market, given that we have left the European Union, but the EU must accept that the UK has the right to regulate its own market. I do not think we should be imposing requirements that necessitate the approval of the European Union for the internal regulation of the UK internal market, except perhaps where there is a cross-border element.
That brings me to the North South Ministerial Council and the SDLP’s amendment, which would effectively almost hand a veto to the North South Ministerial Council in respect to this. That is not something we  would, or could, support. I recognise that the council can be a forum within which we discuss practical issues with the Irish Government and how those problems might be resolved, and it might be a forum in which ideas can come forward.

Colum Eastwood: If the right hon. Member agrees that the North South Ministerial Council would be a good forum for discussing some of these issues, maybe he would allow it to meet.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I am as anxious as anyone to get back to having those discussions, and once the confidence of the Unionist community has been restored—the Bill has the potential to help us to do that—we will be back in our place. I simply say to the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), as I said to the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), that we must recognise that this is not just about the practicalities of trade; for Unionists it goes much deeper than that, and we need to address this. We need to find a solution to this that rebuilds confidence and restores the need for consensus in our politics, and that applies to the North South Ministerial Council. What I cannot accept, and what my party would not agree to, is giving the North South Ministerial Council a veto over what the UK can do to regulate its internal market. I do not think that is right or appropriate. It would have an impact on the delicate constitutional balances that are part of the Belfast agreement.

Colum Eastwood: The right hon. Member makes an interesting point, and I think he is right when he says that it is not just the practicalities of trade that are damaging confidence within the Unionist population, but does he believe that this will be enough to keep those people who are out on the streets happy? There will still be checks, and that constitutional issue that he has will not go away as a result of this Bill.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: We are seeking to find a solution that works for everyone, and we are listening to what business is saying, just as the hon. Member for North Down and the SDLP are rightly doing. I accept that there will not be a solution that everyone in Northern Ireland will agree with.
I do not believe that accommodating checks on goods moving from the UK to the EU represents a constitutional change to our status as part of the United Kingdom, but I do believe that carrying out customs checks on goods travelling from GB to Northern Ireland and staying within the United Kingdom does have a constitutional impact on our position within the United Kingdom. I make a distinction in that respect. The question then is where and how you do those checks. We are prepared to look at what the Government are proposing, which is why I asked them to publish as soon as possible their proposals for the so-called green lane and red lane approach so we can see what that means in practice and how it might work, and to consult the Northern Ireland political parties and the business community on the practicalities of all this. But, in my opinion, removing the bureaucracy, the checks and the restrictions on the movement of goods within the UK internal market answers the question raised by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet: this will resolve the issue around  article 6 of the Act of Union, which says there should be no barriers to trade within the United Kingdom itself.
Although I understand the concerns that have been raised about the practical workings of this Bill, I believe it offers a potential solution that addresses the real and genuine concerns of not only Unionists in Northern Ireland but many in the business community. Yes, some in the business community say that the protocol works for them, but many say the opposite.
We are looking for an outcome that respects Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, that respects the core principles of the Belfast agreement, including the need for consensus, that removes the barriers to trade within the United Kingdom, that offers a practical solution to goods crossing into the European Union and protects the integrity of the EU’s single market, and that enables business to have a real say in how those solutions are designed.
We will not be supporting the amendments because we do not believe they are necessary to achieve the required objectives.

Mary Foy: I rise to speak in support of amendment 28.
It is frustrating and worrying that, yet again, we are debating legislation that will violate an international agreement under a Government who have an alarming disregard for the rule of law. For the second time in the space of a few weeks, the Government are attempting to force a Northern Ireland Bill through this House against the express wishes of many people in the north.
The contempt in which this Government hold the views of people in the north of Ireland has become increasingly clear. They are simply pawns in this Government’s political games, yet the decisions taken today and tomorrow will have a massive impact on the lives of ordinary people across the Irish sea. Given that the Government forced through the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill just the other week, despite being opposed by every party in the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is a shameless act of hypocrisy that they are now using the lack of cross-community support for the protocol as an excuse for scrapping it, especially when the majority of MLAs have written to the Prime Minister opposing these plans, branding them “reckless”, and rejecting the Government’s
“claim to be protecting the Good Friday Agreement as your Government works to destabilise our region. To complain the protocol lacks cross-community consent, while ignoring the fact that Brexit itself—let alone hard Brexit—lacks even basic majority consent here, is a grotesque act of political distortion.”
Cross-community support has real meaning in Northern Ireland, and it is so poor that the Government are seeking to portray themselves as champions of bridging the divide when, just the other week, they were dismissing its importance out of hand. It is absolutely clear that the majority of legislators in the north believe that the measures in this Bill will come at a clear economic cost to Northern Ireland and that the protocol represents the only available protection for Northern Ireland from the worst impacts of that hard Brexit. It is therefore scandalous that this dying Government are dedicating  their final days to riding roughshod over the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland in the name of policies that could have a detrimental impact on the local economy.
That is why I will be supporting amendment 28, as it would prevent the Government from making regulations relating to the dual regulatory regime until an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes has been carried out. The Prime Minister negotiated, signed off and campaigned on this protocol, which he promised to deliver—one of the many promises on which he has reneged. Now, in the death throes of his term in office, he is forcing through this Bill, damaging the credibility of GB. As he leaves office, his legacy remains a complete lack of respect for the rule of law, for international agreements and for the people of Northern Ireland. Sadly, the people of Northern Ireland will be poorer for it.

Sammy Wilson: First, as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), seems to be very sensitive about any comments I make about his past voting behaviour, may I confirm that yes, of course, he walked through the Lobby with us in opposition to the withdrawal agreement? I am not so sure that his main motive was his objection to the Northern Ireland protocol. I suspect that the evidence since that date, the full support the Labour party has given to the protocol and its ignoring of many of the concerns that Unionists have probably confirm my view, and that of most people in Northern Ireland, that regardless of the initial trip through the Lobby in this House, the Labour party supports the protocol. Indeed, its amendments today would seem to indicate that it opposes any attempts to do away with the protocol. I hope that that is a sufficient assurance to him as to my position on his stance.
I want to deal with the three main amendments that have been debated today. The first is amendment 44 to clause 7, in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). It is, no doubt, an attempt to ensure that the process and the concept of dual regulation never takes place. Yet what is the purpose of clause 7? It is threefold. First, it is to ensure that the democratic deficit that exists in Northern Ireland is wiped out. That deficit relates to the EU regulations and laws currently on the statute book as a result of annexe 2 of the protocol and the prospect of any of those 82 pages of laws being changed in the future. Those changes would apply to Northern Ireland without any say from this House, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the business community in Northern Ireland, whether they were detrimental or not.
For the life of me, I cannot see how the continued imposition of that part of the protocol is to the advantage of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I note that some who are opposing the Bill are doing so on the basis that the regulations provided for in the Bill would be implemented by Ministers here, without reference, they say, to the Northern Ireland Executive or Assembly. It seems okay for EU laws to be imposed upon Northern Ireland without any say, but it is an “affront to democracy” when UK Ministers impose regulations on their own country. One has to look at the motives of those who are opposing this clause and ask: are they and do they continue to be the agents of the EU, wishing that we could remain in the EU, even knowing that the people  have voted not to remain in the EU? They are trying to circumvent the wishes of the people of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, these regulations apply by and large to firms that will never trade with the EU. Some 95% of firms in Northern Ireland do not do any trade with the EU, yet they are required under the protocol to abide by EU regulations. This Bill genuinely gives the best of both worlds to firms in Northern Ireland, because those that do not trade with the EU will now be freed from having to abide by costly EU regulations, which may even be detrimental to their business.
At the same time, those that wish to trade with the EU will be able to volunteer to accept EU laws, even though those EU laws have not passed through the Northern Ireland Assembly or been subject to scrutiny. Regardless of the fact that those laws have not been scrutinised, or that they may have detrimental effects, they will volunteer to comply with the regulations. If that is the case, that addresses the concern expressed by the hon. Member for North Down and others—here again, the hon. Member for Hove is wrong—[Interruption.] I think the record will show that the hon. Member did say that businesses would be forced to adopt those regulations. No one will be forced to adopt them. They will make a commercial decision: do I wish to trade with the EU? If I do, I will volunteer to comply with the regulations.
One of my arguments about the Bill is that the clause on dual regulation is probably unnecessary. If a firm decides to trade with another nation, by definition it will have to apply the regulations that are required to sell goods in that country. There is no need for a firm such as Caterpillar in my constituency, which sells generators to Africa, China and America, to adopt dual regulation with the countries to which it sells the generators. It simply makes sure that it adopts and includes the relevant regulations when producing its products, because otherwise it could not sell in those countries. Nevertheless, the Government have decided to include this measure, to give an assurance to the EU that firms that trade from Northern Ireland into the European Union via the Irish Republic will be compliant with EU regulations. They will make that decision. People talk about the Government not honouring the protocol, but this is another way in which they have sought to honour an objective of the protocol, namely that the EU single market will be safeguarded. It will be safeguarded because firms will make a conscious decision to abide by the regulations, whether they are manufacturing chairs, sofas, beds or milk.
I am very touched by the concern that the hon. Member for North Down has for the agriculture industry. I wish he would transfer that concern to some of the climate zealots in his own party, who are demanding that we stop eating beef, drinking milk and using dairy products, and that laws are passed to ensure that people cannot enjoy the kind of sunny day we are experiencing today. I wish only that his concern for the farming industry in Northern Ireland was as consistent as he claims it to be, because I do not think it is. Indeed, some of the climate policies that his party has been promoting in Stormont would have devastated the beef industry, the pig industry, the sheep industry, and the dairy industry in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 13 would require a report on dual access. Substantial information is produced on trade across the border. That is why we know that only 0.4% of EU trade comes through Northern Ireland—we have the statistics. That is how we know that only 5% of businesses sell to the Irish Republic, and that five times more of our exports go to GB than to the Irish Republic. There is already extensive reporting, so I do not know why there is any need for further reports. There also seems to be concern about the impact that the measure would have on the European market. Well, I think the role of this Government is to protect the UK market, not to have concerns about what happens in the EU market. The EU can look after its own market—we have left it—and decide what is good or bad for it. This Government do not have a job to promote the EU market; they do have a job to protect and promote the UK market.
Amendment 14 would require that the North South Ministerial Council debate the regulations and come to a conclusion, and then that that conclusion be reflected and supported by the UK Government and the Joint Committee. There are two fundamental flaws in this. First, the North South Ministerial Council does not have a role in dealing with issues that are reserved matters here at Westminster; it only has a role in dealing with those aspects that are under the remit of the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government. So this would extend the role and the remit of the North South Ministerial Council by allowing and requiring it to comment on issues that are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. Secondly, the United Kingdom would then be required to reflect and support the view of the North South Ministerial Council. Let us not forget that although people talk about the all-Ireland economy, the Irish Government are in competition with the Northern Ireland economy and with the UK economy. How can we reasonably expect something that may be agreed at the North South Ministerial Council that may be detrimental to the UK economy to be supported by UK Ministers?

Claire Hanna: Does the Member acknowledge that the North South Ministerial Council, when it is not being held to ransom, is already a consensus-based forum, and that our amendment speaks to proposals agreed there that would therefore be agreed by his party? Does he not understand how hollow the words about respecting the Good Friday agreement in all its parts sound when a vital part of it, strand 2, is denigrated in this way? Does he further acknowledge, as his party leaders have done, that there are potential mechanisms within strand 2 of the agreement and within the North South Ministerial Council that can give voice to Northern Irish interests?

Sammy Wilson: That brings me to my next point—that introducing reserved matters to the North South Ministerial Council would mean that the controversies that have currently stopped it working, and stopped the Northern Ireland Assembly working, would be imported into the North South Ministerial Council so that we would not get the kind of agreement that the Member talks about. Amendment 14 would reinforce the impact that the protocol has had on the current institutions of the Belfast agreement and bring them into the remit of the North South Ministerial Council in future.
New clause 15 goes down the same route of introducing an input for the North South Ministerial Council, and another barrier to the introduction of dual regulation in the Bill, by requiring that the Executive endorse the arrangements—and in a way that, as we have heard, would exclude Unionists because the SDLP has now adopted majoritarianism with regard to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
A comparison was made with Brexit. Brexit was a majority decision. It was not a majority decision in Northern Ireland; it was a majority decision of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. A referendum was held across the whole of the United Kingdom and it was binding in all parts of the United Kingdom, regardless of pockets where there was a majority for Brexit or a majority against it. If we had gone down the route of consensus on a referendum as suggested by the SDLP—which would of course be impossible—then what would we have done about London or other pockets across the United Kingdom? We cannot make that comparison between the dealings of this Bill regarding the arrangements within the Assembly and a referendum vote.
I hope that the Committee will accept the points I have made and will not vote in favour of those amendments.

Ian Paisley Jnr: It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).
There is no doubt that the Bill before us is a repair job, because Brexit was not completely done. It was not properly done in Northern Ireland, where we were left with a protocol that has caused untold problems, hence why we are back here today. People can say, “Oh, there isn’t really a problem with the protocol. Just get on with it.” However, we have now had I-don’t-know-how-many hours of debate because the protocol is not working. It has broken down and needs to be replaced, and that is the fact of the matter.
The Opposition spokesman, the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, said that the Bill was a solution looking for a problem—I think that was how he characterised it. As funny as that may be, the protocol is a problem and it requires a solution, and we have a duty—indeed, a responsibility—to try and find that solution between us. The protocol is an example of red tape being used to tie up commerce. I will come to that point in some detail later, but the Government were warned that the protocol was going to be a problem. Indeed, the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland left the Government on the issue—that is the fact of the matter—because it caused problems for Northern Ireland and the Union that he and I both cherish.
Of course, we were warning way back in October 2019 that the protocol would cause friction. A previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made it clear that there would be no friction at all and that it would be light-touch, but it has been heavy-handed and has caused problems, so today we are in a position of, “Yes, we told you so.” We now need to fix this, and I am delighted the Government are bringing forward some  measures to fix it. We will see in the round whether they do, but we have to remove the frictions on trade, which are intolerable.
The Minister said earlier that I had made a powerful point about trade. I refer to a graph put together by the haulage industry, which shows that before 2021 there were four requirements to bring goods to Northern Ireland. First, trade transportation would be agreed, standard paperwork would be issued and completed, goods would be transported from GB to Northern Ireland, and then delivery would be completed, which is essentially the same process for taking goods from Scotland to Northern Ireland or Scotland to England.
Since 2021, an additional 11 measures have been put in place, including entry summary declaration forms, simplified frontier declaration forms and movement reference numbers—the carrier then populates goods details for the GVMS, or goods vehicle movement service, and then obtains goods movement reference numbers or GMRs. Goods would then be cleared for transport to Northern Ireland. There would then have to be supplementary declarations completed and duties would be paid on the at-risk goods, alongside a whole host of other measures.
I am delighted that the Minister said that those frictions would be removed, because they need to be removed. They have added considerable costs, as the leader of my party has demonstrated on numerous occasions, not only to doing business in Northern Ireland but for consumers in Northern Ireland. This discriminates against Northern Ireland. It adds costs for everybody in Northern Ireland, it is unfair and it is against our democratic rights. It is important to put that on the record.
In moving his amendment, the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) dwelt mainly on the impact on milk. There are a considerable number of dairy farms in the North Down constituency, so I know that he will have had representations from the dairy industry, but I think it is wrong for the Alliance party in Northern Ireland to pitch this as a “them and us” argument, because it affects every single farmer in Northern Ireland, including every single dairy farmer. It will affect them in slightly different ways, given how they have calibrated their businesses and which area they wish to trade in, but this should not be turned into a zero-sum game. I thought it was unfair of the Member for the Alliance party to parade Mike Johnston out as someone from the dairy sector who supports his point of view and not someone who supports our point of view. It is grossly unfair to characterise Mike Johnston in that way, because he is an absolutely honourable, decent gentleman, and he will tell hon. Members that the current protocol is not the answer to the problems either.

Stephen Farry: I am glad the hon. Gentleman is paying respect to Mike Johnston and his integrity. It was the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) who alluded to ulterior motives behind some of the people fronting some of those organisations and suggested that they were not representing their members. I am not here to twist the Dairy Council to fit a particular narrative; both I and the shadow Secretary of State were simply reflecting what has been said by the sector to Parliament. It is important that we listen to those voices. On the subject of representing people, the  hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made reference to Lakeland Dairies’ somehow being out of sync with the Dairy Council, so I will put on the record that during the course of this debate, I have had a message to say that Lakeland Dairies is in fact very much aligned with the position of the Dairy Council.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the hon. Member for that point, but I want to make it clear that I listened to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim, who works with and knows Mike Johnston as well as I do, and he did not make any detrimental comment about Mike himself in any of the comments he made. He referred to other members and other motives, but he did not make any reference, derogatory or otherwise, about Mike Johnston. I think that is very clear. It is unfair to cast those aspersions.
It is not for us as politicians to say, “Oh, we’ll parade this body in front of Parliament; they’re for us.” That goes back to the zero-sum game of politics. Parading the Ulster Farmers Union and saying, “They’re on our side on this point,” is a cop-out of our political responsibilities. We have a duty as politicians to solve this political problem. The protocol is not a dairy milk problem; it has an impact on the dairy milk sector, but the protocol is a political problem that has caused these problems in the sector. We have a responsibility as politicians to solve the problem and to pull together to try to fix it, because it affects Protestant farmers, Catholic farmers and farmers of no religion the same way. It damages the potential for their business, and we should be pulling together to try to fix it. If this Bill does one thing to try to fix it, I will support that as a step in the right direction.

Carla Lockhart: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is certainly in full flow. It is important to strip this debate back to the businesses currently impacted by the protocol. We cannot look ahead of ourselves. Wilson’s Country and Glens of Antrim Potatoes cannot bring seed potatoes in to Northern Ireland from Scotland, and that will ultimately damage the potato industry in Northern Ireland in future years. AJ Power in my own constituency has said that the increase in costs is sixfold and is likely to be more when the UK Government input reduces. My hon. Friend makes an important point that those issues are impacting businesses now, and therefore we need this Bill to resolve some of them.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The point about seed potatoes is particularly interesting, because that represents the entire community in Northern Ireland—companies that employ right across the community and farms from across the community are all being detrimentally impacted in the same way as a result of the protocol. That is why it needs to be fixed.
We have heard some scaremongering about a mass cull of cows and suddenly milk in Northern Ireland becomes different milk because of paperwork, when the milk is being produced in the same way and the same green grass is being used to feed the cows to produce it. Not only is the milk being produced normally, but the same seeds and crops are brought in to feed the cattle, and it is very clear that none of that will change.
The commercial issues that I referred to and that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim touched on are very interesting: I think there are more dairy  cows in County Cork than there are in the whole of Northern Ireland, yet County Cork and the Republic of Ireland still cannot produce enough milk. Therefore, they need a commercial relationship with Northern Ireland dairy farms to help them and to increase and encourage their businesses. The commercial reality is that we have to do business across the island. The idea that suddenly people will be able to say to farms in Northern Ireland, “Well, you can’t do business with us in the Republic of Ireland.”, when Republic of Ireland companies need Northern Ireland farm produce, highlights the commercial reality in all this.
Again, I go back to this point: the protocol is a political problem that is interfering in commercial and farming activity, and we have to pull it away from that and solve the politics around this.
The Bill does not change the cows, as the hon. Member for North Down seemed to imply. It does not change the grass that the cows are fed on. It does not change how the cows are milked, what lorries the produce goes into or what factories the milk is processed in. No, this is about Eurocrats stopping trade, not because the standard of the food has changed but because the paperwork might change. That is not a good basis on which to run any business, to run cross-border activity or to run cross-national frontier businesses. It is not. That is why the protocol should be changed and why the European Union should be ashamed of itself when it refuses to change some of the aspects of the protocol and to try to fix these matters.
The hon. Member for North Down has mentioned on many occasions the issue relating to veterinary products, pharmaceutical products and so on. A solution was agreed for human products, but the EU has blocked that solution for animals and animal welfare. It did so in such a manner that in a matter of months 50% of all veterinary products will be prevented from going to Northern Ireland. That will have a detrimental impact on farming, and the commercial aspect of that, on pets and on our income and our economy.
If ever there was a threat to cattle, it comes from the EU blocking veterinary products coming into Northern Ireland. That is the damage to our business. Do not take my word for it. Take the words of the National Office of Animal Health. It has been campaigning for this change and it has written to all the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and told us that this has to be changed. But there is no appetite in the EU to change it. NOAH says clearly that this is not about getting more time to negotiate. Time is over; time has run out. Indeed, the Government’s position is that they have been talking for a year and a half to try to fix this. Time is now over. Time is called on this matter. We have to have it resolved urgently and immediately.
Some references have also been made to manufacturing. I am proud to have one of Northern Ireland’s largest and most obvious manufacturing businesses—a world business in fact—in Ballymena, a part of my North Antrim constituency. Wrightbus has traded both before we were in the EU—before 1973— for 40 years after joining the EU, and since leaving the EU. It has been a successful world business. Why? Because of EU regulations? No. Because of British regulations? No. Because it makes the best product, and the best product sells. When it made poor products they did not sell. So because it makes the best product, it has at its feet a  world market. It has been able to trade in the United States, all over Malaysia, in the middle east and in other parts of the world as well as the EU.
The idea that suddenly the protocol is making life easier or better for Wrightbus is wrong. The evidence from Wrightbus has been that, yes, it is getting good trade deals both inside the EU—in Germany and the Republic of Ireland—and outside the EU—in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. That is because of its product, but its product has been made costly to produce due to the impact of the protocol. It has made it more costly to get aluminium and other components into Northern Ireland from Great Britain. That adds to the manufacturing time, and time equals money. There is an impact on its product. While it is a market leader at present, as soon as it is challenged in that market lead, we will soon find out the pressure that that industry will be under.
It is very clear to me that in the Republic of Ireland there is a commercial interest in having some damage done to Northern Ireland’s trade. People do not like that being said, but it is a fact. The Republic of Ireland has breached regulations time and again. It is being investigated for a £200 million loan to Aer Lingus, which was brought to our attention in April. Since Brexit, I understand that the UK Government have set up an EU subsidy monitoring unit, which has asked for that £200 million loan to be investigated. It is causing commercial differences on the island of Ireland, to the point that the arm of Aer Lingus that operates out of Northern Ireland airports is being damaged by the grants and loans being given to its commercial arm in the Republic of Ireland.
Why would the Republic of Ireland do that? Well, it is in the interests of Dublin airport to get more passengers, but there is only one place it can get them from: the island of Ireland. If it is not getting enough passengers from the Republic of Ireland, it will have to take them from Northern Ireland. That commercial disadvantage has an impact on Northern Ireland and its trade. I am glad that that illegal loan is being investigated; I hope that the Republic of Ireland comes clean about it and is made to take it back, instead of giving unfair advantages to its companies in the Republic of Ireland.
That paragon of neutrality, Mr Leo Varadkar, has told us that the UK is not even-handed when it comes to the protocol. Well, I am glad that the UK is not even-handed, because the protocol is damaging part of the United Kingdom, but we are talking about a person who has single-handedly juxtaposed the security installations of Northern Ireland for the past 40 years with the allegedly commercial installations that need to be put in place because of Brexit. It is little wonder that people feel very annoyed and let down by people like Leo Varadkar, who effectively told lies about the process that would take place.
We have always had two currencies on our island, and two tax regimes. It is very clear to me that this matter will need to be solved urgently. I am therefore more than happy to support the Bill once again today, as a step in the right direction in getting us through the morass created by the Northern Ireland protocol.

Michael Ellis: I am grateful to all the participants in this important debate. Very briefly, I would like to reiterate the following points. No business, including in the dairy sector—I recently visited Lakeland Dairies in Belfast—will be worse off as a result of UK action. The Bill will force no change on any sector, but it will allow Ministers to respond to specific asks from each sector, if appropriate. I have heard strong views about the thoughts of sectors of the Northern Ireland economy, particularly dairy. Understanding such concerns is at the heart of our work; that is why we have been engaging with stakeholders, and will continue to.
May I place on the record my appreciation for the work of the business representative organisations in Northern Ireland, which are doing, and will no doubt continue to do, an important, worthy job on behalf of their members?
While the Northern Ireland protocol was, as we know, agreed with the best of intentions, it is causing real problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland. This legislation will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 201, Noes 293.
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Regulation of goods: new law

Amendment proposed: 28, in page5,line34,at end insert—
“(3) Before making regulations under this section, a Minister of the Crown must carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed regulations, and conduct a consultation on the proposed regulations with any stakeholders whom the Minister of the Crown considers appropriate.
(4) The Minister of the Crown making regulations under this section must lay before each House of Parliament with a copy or draft of the regulations a copy of the relevant economic impact assessment and a report of the relevant consultation.”—(Peter Kyle.)
This amendment would require an economic impact assessment to be carried out before a Minister could make any provisions for the dual regulatory regime.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 205, Noes 293.
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 15 - UK-EU Joint Committee: report to Parliament

“(1) When the UK-EU Joint Committee has discussed regulation of goods in connection with the Northern Ireland Protocol, a Minister of the Crown must lay a report before each House of Parliament detailing those discussions within 21 days of the meeting of the UK-EU Joint Committee at which those matters were discussed.
(2) Each such report must include information on how UK representatives adhered to and sought agreement with representatives of the European Union on relevant proposals—
(a) agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive or endorsed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, or both, and promoted by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly, or
(b) agreed by the North-South Ministerial Council or North-South Implementation bodies and made to the Specialised Committee, pursuant to Article 14 (b) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”—(Colum Eastwood.)
This new clause would require a Minister of the Crown to report to each House of Parliament on meetings between the UK and EU in the Joint Committee within 21 days of each meeting and to include information on the regard afforded to any submissions from the Strand One and Strand Two institutions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement by UK and EU respectively.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 204, Noes 292.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12 - Subsidy control

Peter Kyle: I beg to move amendment 37, page 7, line 10, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 41, in clause 17, page 9, line 40, leave out “they consider appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Clause 17 stand part.

Peter Kyle: Thank you Dame Eleanor; it is a privilege to serve under your chairship this afternoon.
We are now covering clauses 12 and 17, which deal with subsidies and VAT. These are complex areas of the legislation that speak to a lack of detail in the Bill and about what the Government will actually do in these areas, should the Bill proceed to statute. Clause 12 excludes article 10 and annexes 5 and 6 of the protocol. These are the EU state aid rules relating to goods and wholesale electricity trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. We can immediately see that there is an added complexity to this part of the protocol due to the fact that the electricity industry operates a single wholesale market across the whole island of Ireland. I am not aware that the Government want to try to unpick that—I do not want to give them any ideas—but it illustrates the tangled web that Ministers are creating with this Bill.
Clause 12(3) simply says:
“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make any provision which the Minister considers appropriate in connection with any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol to which this section relates.”
Amendment 37, which is a probing amendment, would leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary” to turn the provision into an objective test. Considering the past actions of this Government, I am surprised that any Member is content to let Ministers make any provisions on a whim in such a hugely complex policy area.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee shares this view. Its report on these clauses says:
“The Government’s justification is that the power allows them to take account of any possible future developments in this policy area. This is an inadequate justification because it does not explain why this should be done in regulations rather than by amending the Bill once enacted. Nothing is said about the sort of provision that could be made beyond the fact that it must be appropriate. Although the Memorandum notes that the effect of disapplying EU state aid law would mean the UK subsidy control regime applies, clause 12(3) read with clause 22(1) allows regulations to rewrite the position for Northern Ireland.”
In other words, the Government are giving themselves practically limitless scope to do whatever they want. What makes this even more frustrating is that subsidy  controls are an area on which there is a clear path forward to adapt the protocol, and it should be improved via the joint committee.
We all want our relationship with the EU to evolve, and the trade and co-operation agreement contains subsidy measures on which the Government and the EU have previously found common compromise. The Government are letting the EU off the hook by bundling everything into this Bill rather than engaging in the hard graft of negotiation and compromise to improve the protocol in a legal way as part of an agreed process.
Clause 17 is similar in how it looks to solve problems with the VAT application of the protocol. The Labour party has been clear that we would like to remove VAT from energy bills to tackle the Tory cost of living crisis on a UK-wide basis, and we have called on the Government to do that immediately. The protocol currently makes that harder to do in Northern Ireland, and it is something we would seek to negotiate. We have to talk to the EU, because the agreement the Government signed explicitly requires Northern Ireland to follow EU VAT rules on goods.
It beggars belief that the Government did not foresee VAT issues when they negotiated and signed the protocol. Neither can they argue that it is being implemented in a bureaucratic way, because VAT issues, by their nature, are bureaucratic and technical. Clauses 12 and 17, on VAT and subsidies, represent areas where we all want to see improvements in the protocol, but this Bill makes improving them harder to achieve because it pushes a negotiated solution further away.
Dame Eleanor, you will be pleased to know that my comments on this group are brief.

Eleanor Laing: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman how impressed I am by that.

John Redwood: I welcome the notion of measures that restore our control over VAT and subsidies in Northern Ireland. It is entirely within the spirit and the text of the protocol, which says that both parties will respect the internal market of the United Kingdom. How can we have a proper functioning internal market if we have to have rates of VAT in Northern Ireland that are different from the rest of our internal market? And how can we claim that our country’s sovereignty is respected by this part of the agreement, as the EU originally said it would be, if we are not sovereign to change VAT in an important part of the United Kingdom? It is right that we legislate on this issue, because we took back control and we wish to restore the sovereignty of this Parliament. How can we say that we have a sovereign Parliament properly restored if our Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot change VAT in part of the UK? It is right and it is legal that we legislate within the terms of the protocol and the agreement, and it is essential that we do so. Those who favour a negotiated solution with the EU should recognise that a huge amount of time and talent has been put into negotiating with the EU in recent years on these matters, and it has been unwilling to be reasonable or to respect the spirit and even the letter of the protocol itself. It is time to legislate.
I say to those who favour a negotiated solution and still have this idea that the EU will, in due course, negotiate properly over one that it is far more likely to  negotiate in a more sympathetic and realistic spirit if it knows that we have the firm backstop of clear legislation, which means we will do the right thing by Northern Ireland and the whole UK if the EU cannot be bothered to meet us and understand what it means for the communities in Northern Ireland.
The EU should also take on board the good advice from the Democratic Unionist party and other members of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. The whole fabric of the Good Friday agreement rests upon the consent of both communities. The EU says it fully signs up to that and sees it as of prior importance to the protocol, so the EU has to understand that there is no cross-community consent for the current position. The sooner we legislate to sort that out, the better.

Sammy Wilson: Although the proposer of the amendments, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), has said that these are complex issues, for people in Northern Ireland they are very simple. First, simply the inclusion of Northern Ireland under the VAT regime of the EU means that when there are tax changes that can apply to the rest of the UK, they cannot apply to Northern Ireland. I know that he has placed considerable faith in the willingness and ability of the EU to negotiate its way around some of these obstacles, but the fact of the matter is that despite two years of negotiations, these obstacles have not been removed. When it comes to the kinds of things that the Government may wish to do, and which he would like the Government to do, for example, on VAT on electricity bills, the action required is not something to be done some time in the distance future; it is something that is essential now, because people are facing the high fuel and energy bills now. Frankly, many people in Northern Ireland, where fuel poverty is higher than it is in most parts of the UK, would find themselves disadvantaged for not weeks or months but perhaps even years while negotiations went on as to whether or not the EU would be prepared to permit the UK Government to exercise the fiscal freedoms that we thought we had obtained when we left the EU and to apply them to Northern Ireland.
I believe that this Bill and this clause are necessary. I also believe that the wording is correct, with the Government deeming the issue “appropriate” rather than “necessary”, because it could be argued that in some instances although it might be good to change the VAT rate, it is not necessary to do so; it could be argued that it is not necessary to keep in line with the rest of the UK and that particular circumstances pertain in Northern Ireland that do not make it necessary. That is why I believe the threshold of appropriateness is correct.
When it comes to state aid, the issues are also not complex—they are very simple. They have implications for the constituents of all Members of this House, because let us not forget that the state aid provisions refer to any state aid and any support that the Government may give to industries or firms anywhere in the UK if it impacts on trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. That is what article 10 says about any respective measures that affect trade between Northern Ireland and the Union, and that are subject to the protocol. Annexes 2 and 5 of the protocol contain lists of the kinds of sectors that would be impacted by that.
That means that the Government are always looking over their shoulder when they seek to give support to businesses. That support may be peripheral—for example,  if the Government decide, as they have done, to support the production of batteries for motor cars in a factory in GB. If those cars are selling in Northern Ireland and, as a result of the subsidy and support, cars made in GB would have an advantage on the Northern Ireland market—compared with French cars, for example—that could be an area where the EU Commission would say that state aid rules apply, and the Commission and European Court would make a decision on that.
That is why it is appropriate that the Government have such a provision, because we cannot define or be sure at what stage the EU may say, “The support you have given that industry will impact on and give a Northern Ireland seller an advantage on the EU market, and therefore we wish to interfere in the support that you give to industry.” That is not just about Northern Ireland, because state aid provisions do not just apply specifically to Northern Ireland firms; they apply to those firms that may sell in Northern Ireland and get support elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is why it is correct that Ministers have the ability to make a decision on whether something is appropriate.
Secondly, Ministers should have the flexibility to consider circumstances and issues that may emerge, and actions that the EU may wish to take. Those actions cannot be foreseen now, but we might have to act on them quickly in future. For that reason, I hope the amendments will not be pushed to a vote, and that Labour Members will see that rather than being complex, these are simple issues that require the kinds of actions already included in the Bill.

Stephen Farry: I will be brief, as I have just a few short points. First, I recognise that there are genuine concerns about state aid and VAT. We want to see those issues resolved, but that resolution has to be via negotiation with the European Union. On state aid, it is worth reflecting that companies will be operating across the service and goods sectors, and this is where things become incredibly complex, given the different nature of the regimes and how that applies to the European Union. State aid rules are not an absolute barrier, and prior to leaving the European Union, all parts of the UK would routinely apply to the European Commission for permission in that respect.
We should desire a situation where there are reduced rates of VAT in line with wider UK policy, and allow various incentives for people to do activities or help people with bills. We have the option of negotiating again with the European Union. Application to Northern Ireland is not barred under the protocol, but it does involve the UK Government making an application to the Commission. I have spoken to Maroš Šefčovič in that regard, and the door is open for those discussions.
There was a lot of cynicism about what was announced by the Chancellor in his spring statement on VAT and renewables, and this was seen as a major cause célèbre for why the protocol had to be addressed and fixed. In practice, the actual value of that measure to Northern Ireland per annum, based on the Treasury’s figures, was only £1 million, yet a huge drama was built up around it. Of course it was open to the Government to talk to the European Commission about the measure’s application in Northern Ireland. I asked the Treasury a question  towards the end of April, and the answer was, “We’ve had no such discussions with the European Union in that regard”, and that it would be part of wider discussions on the Northern Ireland protocol. Rather than actually addressing the issue when a solution was readily available, the Government were more interested in using it as something with which to bash the European Union about the head, and to create a narrative of crisis.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Last autumn, the Chancellor announced several VAT changes and confirmed that he had to speak to the EU to make those changes. There have been talks with the EU, but those changes are still not in place. Does the hon. Member not agree that it is wrong that all our constituents to have to wait for the EU to go through its machinations before VAT changes can be effected in Northern Ireland? On the point about there being only £1 million of benefit from the subsidy in the spring statement, if the benefit is so minor, why does it take so long to make the change?

Stephen Farry: There are two points to raise on that. The first is about the practicalities. My understanding is that discussions have not been taking place between the Treasury and the European Union to get these issues resolved, particularly on the situation with renewables, but the door is open. The amount may be £1 million, but we will get that as a Barnett consequential anyway. The solution is available. Across the European Union, rates of VAT, or its equivalents, are being reduced to support renewables and to help people with energy bills, so we are not asking the impossible.
The wider point is why on earth we have to go through this process in any event. The answer is probably the same one that we give on countless occasions: this is the outworking of the protocol, and the protocol is the outworking of Brexit. Decisions made about the nature of Brexit subsequent to the introduction of the protocol had to be put in place, and these are the issues that have to be managed as a consequence. We have to own the decisions taken by the Government and this Parliament, and work through them to find the best outcomes, which I believe are achievable only through negotiation.
I am not denying that there are issues on state aid and VAT, but unilateral action will not provide a long-term outcome; in fact, it will make things more difficult. We can achieve outcomes through negotiation, and I believe that the door is open for that if the Government choose to walk through it, rather than standing back, and using the issue as an excuse and a reason to construct a narrative as to why this Bill is required.

Gavin Robinson: I heard your positive assent, Dame Eleanor, when the shadow Secretary of State sat down, and you were rather impressed when the usual channels inquired of us how long we would take and we indicated that we would be brief. We were asked whether we would be about 20 minutes, and I aim to please, Dame Eleanor.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), who in many ways makes a great argument, but not, I think, the one he intended to make. What he outlined highlights starkly not just the practical application of state aid policy, subsidy policy and VAT policy, but the interface between that practical  application and the constitutionally injurious position that we are left in because of the protocol. Whether the differential between VAT on solar panels and renewables was £1 million or £100 billion, the issue is not the scale of the sum; it is why this sovereign Parliament is constrained in setting VAT rules for the nation. That is the nub of it. People say that there is no constitutional harm with the protocol, and when we highlight the constitutional damage that has been done, they rubbish it and wish it away, but here is the outworking of that; one part of our country is unable to benefit from VAT rates set nationally by this Parliament.
The fact that there are two probing—and, I respectfully suggest, rather superficial—amendments before us from across the political spectrum highlights that not only is there a problem with VAT rates, subsidies and state aid under the protocol, but that a resolution is required. Why should we have to negotiate that agreed solution or outcome? It is because we have ceded sovereignty in a way that constitutionally impinges on article 6 of the Acts of Union. That is why we are in this position. If that had not been impliedly repealed, as the Government lawyers state in our High Court in Belfast, we would not have these challenges.
The Joint Committee has summarily failed in many aspects of what it was tasked to do under the Northern Ireland protocol. It did not designate anywhere near enough goods as goods that could come from GB to Northern Ireland without risk of onward transit into the single market. We raised the issue of the VAT margin on the sale of second-hand cars, for example, for which there should have been a quick fix, but there was not. Whereas a second-hand car salesman in England pays VAT only on the profit from the sale of the car, in Northern Ireland they have to pay VAT on the entirety of the sale. Why? Because of the Northern Ireland protocol. The solution is very simple, but it took months and months of painstaking negotiation, and that is but one example from scores of issues that pervade industry and business in Northern Ireland.
That was the VAT margins; then there are the importation tariffs that our businesses in Northern Ireland had to pay in importing steel, a raw product, from GB to Northern Ireland. There should not be any tariffs at all within our own country. That highlights the practical application of the constitutional harm. Again, it took month upon month of painstaking work to get agreement through the Joint Committee, but when we were on the cusp of agreeing a solution for steel, I said, “Hang on a second. I have an aircraft manufacturer in Belfast East that uses aluminium. What about tariffs on aluminium?” It remains the case that a tariff is applied to any aluminium, a raw product, coming from GB to Northern Ireland, and a further tariff is applied to anything fabricated in Northern Ireland as a result of that raw product going back to GB for further integration—a tariff on the movement of a material from one part of our country to another, and back again.

Stephen Farry: rose—

Gavin Robinson: Civil aviation parts are tariff-free internationally anyway, and large manufacturers such as Spirit Aerosystems in my constituency have an agreed workaround and are exempt, but many in the supply chain do not, including some engineers in the hon. Member’s constituency.

Stephen Farry: Indeed, and I am having dinner later tonight with representatives from an esteemed local company in the aerospace sector. Does the hon. Member recognise that his very valid points about tariffs point to an issue not with the protocol, but with the trade and co-operation agreement, and the gap that was rather, shall we say, irresponsibly left by the lead negotiator, Lord Frost?

Gavin Robinson: No, I would not agree at all with that, because the tariffs came long before the TCA and arise from the protocol. I heard the hon. Member’s suggestion that people were making a mountain out of molehill in relation to VAT on renewables; with respect to him, I think that was a bit of a stretch. I do not agree with him on that, but the tariffs on raw materials coming from one part of our country to another are unnecessary. They are a breach of article 6 of the Act of Union. That breach is constitutional harm arising from the practical application of a protocol that was, I recognise, agreed by this Parliament, but not without warning from us.
Dame Eleanor, you will recognise that none of these contributions is going into extraordinary detail on the issue. There is a complexity to it, but in the real world of politics, consumers and the businesses that we represent, we need a practical solution. Given how limited the amendments in this group are, it is fair to say not only that is it accepted that there needs to be a practical solution, but that this Bill takes us far along that path.

Eleanor Laing: Sir Geoffrey Robinson.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Being named after another esteemed Member of this House is, I am sure, a fitting tribute, but thank you, Dame Eleanor, for the opportunity to say a few words in this debate.

Eleanor Laing: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman; I have just realised that I called him by the wrong name—it is 41° C outside.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Robinson is quite a popular name in the Democratic Unionist party. I am honoured to join my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has that assignation.
I listened very carefully to the comments that the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) made about VAT, and particularly the difficulties that arose from the Chancellor’s announcement of a VAT relief on certain energy products that are designed to make homes more energy-efficient. He made the point, and I am sure it is accurate, that according to Treasury figures, Northern Ireland would stand to benefit by an amount in the region of £1 million. However, that highlights the failure of the Alliance party to recognise that for us it is not a matter of the sum involved; it is the principle—the fact that Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, as is recognised in the Belfast agreement, in the constitution of the Republic of Ireland and by this Government, cannot benefit from a scheme designed to benefit all our country because the rules of an external body prevent the Treasury from applying that benefit to all the United Kingdom.

Sammy Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is an issue not just for us Unionists? It should be an issue for the whole House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot apply his or her decisions to the whole United Kingdom, which this Government are supposed to have gained sovereignty over. That should be a concern for everybody who is elected to this House and believes that this House is the body that makes decisions for the United Kingdom.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: My right hon. Friend is right, of course. That goes to the heart of what Brexit is about. The mantra was “Taking back control.” That meant taking back control of our borders, our money and our laws. Her Majesty’s Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot apply a benefit designed for the whole United Kingdom to one part of it, Northern Ireland. That highlights a flaw in the final Brexit arrangements: in respect of Northern Ireland, we do not have control over our money, our laws or, sadly, our border. That is a fundamental point.
I respect the fact that the hon. Member for North Down speaks from a particular perspective, and I in no way mean to diminish its validity, but many of his constituents are solid Unionists. I have been in North Down since becoming leader of my party and have met many of those Unionists, who are affronted that their sense of identity and of belonging to the United Kingdom is undermined by the protocol, and that there is no proper recognition of that reality. That goes to the heart of why we have the current political problems and instability, and why our political institutions are not functioning properly.

Sammy Wilson: There is the argument that says, “Well, you could negotiate this. We should go back to the EU and negotiate to allow the VAT reduction to be applied to Northern Ireland.” Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is even more demeaning? The Government claim to have taken back control; the argument is that they should go cap in hand to a body that we left because we no longer wanted it to have control over decisions made in the United Kingdom, and ask, “Please can we apply tax changes that we made for England, Scotland and Wales to Northern Ireland?” That is even more demeaning than saying, “At least we’ve got back control for the rest of the UK.”

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, but the matter goes further than that. It is not just that our Government cannot apply their own policies and economic and financial initiatives to Northern Ireland in the same way that they can to the rest of the United Kingdom; it is that those restrictions imposed by the European Union are restrictions over which none of us on the DUP side has any control. They are regulations and rules on VAT brought forward by the European Union, on which we have no say whatsoever.

Stephen Farry: It may surprise the right hon. Gentleman that I have quite a lot of sympathy with what he is saying on VAT. Perhaps it is for this reason. A lot of the issues relating to regulation of goods relate to the devolved competencies of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Obviously, we are talking here about UK-wide macroeconomic tax policy. That is a different issue. I do not want to get into  the whole background of Brexit and the protocol during this Committee stage, except to say that the reason for the differential relates to the fact that, in order to avoid a land border on the island of Ireland, certain decisions were taken, and one of those was that Northern Ireland should retain access to the single market for goods. The VAT rules are linked to that. While I acknowledge that there is some validity in the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, it is important to acknowledge the background, and the only way to address it is through negotiation.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but negotiations have taken place and all these issues have been well aired with the European Union. When I met Maroš Šefčovič, I pointed out the real and practical impacts of the protocol not only on businesses in Northern Ireland but on consumers. More fundamentally, I pointed out the impact on our identity and sense of our place within the United Kingdom—the relationship of Northern Ireland with the rest of our home country.
I simply wanted to rise to make this point again this afternoon, Dame Eleanor, and to reaffirm a point that is fundamentally important. Let us not lose sight of the main objective of the Bill. While the Bill seeks to create a framework within which we can find practical solutions to the problems created by the protocol, more fundamentally the Bill is about addressing the concerns that have given rise to the political instability in Northern Ireland. It is about protecting the Good Friday or Belfast agreement, protecting the political institutions, protecting the delicate constitutional balance that is at the heart of that agreement, and resetting it in a way that achieves the consensus that is the absolute engine that drives power sharing in Northern Ireland.
I fear at times that some fellow Members of this Committee get so into the weeds of the detail that they lose sight of the bigger picture, which we believe is fundamental for the delivery of the Bill.

Lucy Frazer: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General for opening the debate this afternoon, and I thank hon. Members across the Committee who have contributed to it.
There has been a lot of talk this afternoon about negotiation. The Government have consistently said that it is our preference to resolve the issues through negotiation. Our door remains open, but the EU has so far not been willing to make changes to the protocol that deliver the solutions Northern Ireland needs. In that context, the Government are acting now to provide the solutions, to be implemented through this legislation, including for fiscal policy.
The reality is that businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland are not currently afforded the same UK tax breaks as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is preventing them from reaping the full benefits of this Government’s policies, and this simply cannot continue to be the case. The clauses we are discussing today will enable us to remedy these discrepancies, by paving the way for Northern Ireland to benefit from VAT, excise and subsidy control regimes consistent with those in place in Great Britain.
Let me begin by addressing clause 12. The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) said that the clause was complicated. It provides the basis for a single UK-wide subsidy control policy rather than the two separate regimes currently existing under the Northern Ireland protocol. The clause will provide legal certainty, and therefore confidence, about the extent to which businesses will be able to receive subsidies. It will provide clarity in domestic law that article 10 is disapplied, meaning that any subsidies that would previously have been notifiable to the EU under article 10 will no longer need to be notified. The clause will also amend section 48(3) of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 so that UK subsidy control requirements will apply to all UK subsidies, including those in Northern Ireland. Clause 12(3) provides powers for a Minister to make appropriate provision regarding any part of the Northern Ireland protocol to which the clause relates.
The protocol creates a two-tier system in the UK under which people and businesses in Northern Ireland are at risk of losing out in comparison with the rest of the UK. EU state aid rules have limited the level of support that may be granted in Northern Ireland without approval from the EU. With the covid-19 recovery loan scheme, for example, there were more limitations on who was eligible for the loans in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. The Bill will remove that uncertainty for businesses and bring about parity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Clause 17 provides Ministers with the ability to ensure that VAT, excise and other relevant tax policy is consistent across the whole UK, including Northern Ireland. That means that people in Northern Ireland will benefit from the same policies as people in Great Britain where it is beneficial for them to do so—as, of course, they should. I would like to explain why that is important. The EU has set rigid limits on VAT and excise rates and reliefs in Northern Ireland, meaning that even if UK policy changes would have no impact at all on the EU, they may not currently apply in Northern Ireland. That is why, as hon. Members across the Committee have mentioned, we still have not been able to introduce the new temporary zero rate for energy saving materials in Northern Ireland, as we have done in Great Britain.

Stephen Farry: Will the Financial Secretary clarify whether the Treasury has made any approach to the European Commission to seek the flexibility to have the same rate? Whenever she wrote to me at the end of April, she said that no discussions whatever had taken place since the Chancellor’s spring statement.

Lucy Frazer: As the hon. Member will know, because the point has been raised across the Committee over the past few days, negotiations have been taking place for almost two years. There have been 300 hours of negotiations with our EU counterparts, UK officials have shared 17 further non-papers with the European Commission, and we have been attempting to find common ground across these areas. Since the date that the hon. Member mentioned, the Foreign Secretary invited Vice-President Šefčovič to a joint committee meeting, where she announced our intention to table legislation. We would like to resolve the issue through negotiation, but it simply has not been possible.
In future, businesses in Northern Ireland will be subject to new EU VAT, excise and energy tax directives even where they are inappropriate and burdensome for  Northern Ireland. That includes forthcoming changes to the application of the EU VAT registration thresholds, which could have a significant administrative impact on businesses in Northern Ireland. Under the Bill, however, we will be able to introduce targeted reliefs to support individuals with the cost of living crisis and achieve net zero, in addition to being able to reform our complicated alcohol duty system, bringing our tax system into the modern era and benefiting the entire UK.
It is not right that there should be unnecessary tax discrepancies between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Clause 17 will enable the Government to lessen or eliminate those discrepancies.

John Redwood: Will the Financial Secretary confirm that the Treasury will never use the argument that we must not press ahead with the very necessary VAT cut on energy in the cost of living crisis because we cannot apply it in Northern Ireland? It could damage GB as well as NI if that argument were used. Will she promise that the Government will energetically pursue complete sovereignty over VAT?

Lucy Frazer: After this legislation has passed, we will be able to introduce VAT legislation across the UK in the interests of both GB and Northern Ireland. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Treasury consistently looks at tax policies, including VAT, and the benefits and disbenefits of bringing in changes.
I turn now to amendments 37 and 41 in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I should note that this issue was addressed in a previous debate, so, in the interests of time, I shall aim to be brief. The amendments would restrict the use of the Bill’s powers to only make provision that is “necessary” rather than to make provision that the Minister considers is “appropriate”.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I have said previously, “necessary” is a very strict legal test. The amendments would therefore remove the policy discretion for the exercise of these powers, potentially limiting Ministers’ choice of the right solutions to the problems caused by the protocol. Changing the test to an objective one will provide additional uncertainty to businesses and consumers and it would severely limit the ability to facilitate consistent VAT, excise and other relevant tax policies between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as well as a domestic subsidy control regime that applies to the whole of the UK.
I want to comment on how that was expressed by the hon. Member for Hove, who suggested that Ministers could make changes on a whim. That is simply not the case and is a misrepresentation of the position that is clearly set out in the legislation. Clause 12(3) clearly states:
“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make any provision which the Minister considers appropriate in connection with any provision”.
Therefore, he or she would need to consider those matters very carefully, as Ministers from across the House would do. The amendments might also prohibit the Government from responding in a flexible way to issues facing Northern Ireland. That, in turn, will have a negative impact on Northern Irish businesses and individuals, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Many hon. Members discussed the negotiations, and I hope that I have answered those points in my response to the intervention from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), The hon. Member for Hove talked about the single electricity market. The right thing to do is not to impact the single electricity market. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we want to cement the provisions in the protocol that are working, including the single electricity market. That is why this Bill does not seek to exclude article 9 or annex 4, which maintain the single electricity market. The Government are committed to preserving it and the benefits that it provides to UK citizens in Northern Ireland.
For those reasons, taken together, these clauses will ensure that the Government can set UK-wide policies on subsidy control and VAT, ensuring that those in Northern Ireland can benefit from the same level of support as those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Peter Kyle: The Minister has clarified that the Government would not act on a whim. However, she did so by saying, in essence, that they would not act on a whim, but they had the power to do so. That is the worry that we have before us. None the less, I will withdraw our amendment, because I hope that the other place will have more time to ventilate these arguments, go into them in more detail and return with some more credible amendments for us to consider in this place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Resolved,
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—(Julie Marson.)
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought it might be appropriate to draw the House’s attention to a small adjustment to the business tomorrow. Given the progress of the Committee of the whole House, we will now take Third Reading of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill tomorrow. A supplementary programme motion will be tabled tonight to provide an extra hour of debate tomorrow.

Eleanor Laing: I will take any points of order further to that point of order. I see that there are none. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is very useful for the House to know of the change that will be made to tomorrow’s Order Paper.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Electricity

That the draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.

Civil Aviation

That the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 21 June, be approved.

Building and Buildings

That the draft Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 7 June, be approved.

Financial Services

That the draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.—(Julie Marson.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Quarry in Preesall

Cat Smith: I rise to present a petition signed by 45 of my constituents who live in and around the beautiful village of Preesall. It was signed by every member of the public who attended my very impromptu public meeting on the matter of the Preesall quarry on 1 July. I put on the record my thanks to my constituent Leanne for organising the posters across the village so well.
Residents are concerned about the proposal to build a new quarry, due to concerns about the roads and the environmental impact, as well as about noise, dust pollution and contaminated water. Quarries disrupt the water table, which is a worry in a village that has localised flooding.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ask Lancashire County Council to engage with local residents and ultimately reject the plans for a quarry in Preesall.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that residents of Preesall and Knott End on Sea are concerned about a proposal to build a new quarry in Preesall to remove 460,000 tonnes of sand and gravel; notes if the company wants to remove 460,000 tonnes of material, it is equivalent to 43,000 return trips on Preesall’s narrow rural roads; declares that, given the dangerously poor state of the public access routes to the quarry land at Bourbles Farm, rural roads can not withstand the daily impact of so many 32 tonne HGV journeys; further that many hundreds of families would be adversely affected by the environmental impact of mining a quarry so close to residential homes; further that creating quarries requires the removal of virtually all natural vegetation, top soil and subsoil to reach the aggregate underneath leading to a loss of existing animal wildlife and biodiversity as plants and aquatic habitats are destroyed; further that adjacent eco-systems are affected by noise, dust, pollution and contaminated water; and further that quarries also  disrupt the existing movement of surface water and groundwater which is a worry in a village with a history of localised flooding.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ask Lancashire County Council to engage with local residents and ultimately reject the plans for a quarry in Preesall.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002744]

Petition - DWP dedicated telephone line for advice services

David Linden: Over the past few weeks, I have spoken to a number of local citizens advice bureaux that, as would always be the case, are concerned about the impact of social security cuts at Westminster on many of their clients. One issue they have raised with me is the increasing casework they are experiencing. In particular, it is taking their staff and volunteers hours and hours to get through to the Department for Work and Pensions.
I pay tribute to Liz Willis and Joan McClure from the Parkhead and Easterhouse citizens advice bureaux who have petitioned me.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to set up a Department of Work and Pensions dedicated telephone line for advice services.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Declares that punitive social security cuts as well as the rising use of conditionality means that more and more people are turning to advice services, such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, to advocate on their behalf with the Department of Work and Pensions; and further that many advice service staff and volunteers are spending far too much time waiting to speak with DWP staff on general telephone lines.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to set up a Department of Work and Pensions dedicated telephone line for advice services.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002745]

Asylum Accommodation: Barry House, East Dulwich

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Julie Marson.)

Helen Hayes: I am grateful to have secured the Adjournment debate to bring to the House my concerns about the wellbeing of asylum seekers living in Barry House in my constituency. Barry House is Home Office initial accommodation that is provided under contract by Clearsprings. It provides housing for approximately 140 asylum seekers. Among the residents of Barry House at any given time are a significant number of children, babies and pregnant women.
I raised concerns about Barry House in a Westminster Hall debate on initial accommodation in 2018. I looked back at that debate today, and not only is every single concern I raised still relevant; every one of them has worsened because of the growing Home Office backlog. So I want to speak again about Barry House and to raise concerns about the plight of asylum seekers living in hotels across the country, which are being used as overspill accommodation under the initial accommodation contract.
I meet regularly with residents of Barry House. They are clear that the issues they are experiencing are not the fault of staff who work at Barry House, whom they describe as trying to do their best. The problems are structural. They are in the nature of the Home Office contract and the management of the contract. They are an indication of how this Government regard those who come to the UK fleeing violence and persecution.
There is a major accountability gap in relation to initial accommodation for asylum seekers because the Government publish no data and have no official target for the length of time that an asylum seeker is supposed to spend in initial accommodation. There is also no official data on the length of time that asylum seekers wait to receive section 98 support, without which they would be destitute.
I understand that the Government have historically aimed to move asylum seekers on from initial accommodation within 35 days, but a freedom of information request by The Independent newspaper revealed that, at the end of September 2021, two thirds of asylum seekers in hotels, including 1,079 children, had passed that limit, and the situation is no different at Barry House. Nearly 1,000 asylum seekers, according to that data, spent more than six months in hotel rooms, with 356 longer than a year. The Home has Office refused to publish more up-to-date data, but it is not a wild leap of the imagination to suggest that the situation may have got significantly worse.
I hear regularly from residents in Barry House who have been there for many months, and there is currently at least one family, with two teenage children and a disabled grandmother, who have been stuck in a single room in Barry House for more than two years. While asylum seekers wait at Barry House, the quality of accommodation is dire. Barry House provides bedrooms with shared bathrooms and no kitchen facilities. Covid restrictions remained in place long after they had been  lifted for everyone else, meaning that the shared common room and dining space were closed and residents had to eat in their rooms.
One of the most frequently raised issues at Barry House and in hotel accommodation is the quality of the food. Residents report that the food is bland, unappetising, nutritionally poor, culturally inappropriate, often cold and repetitive. Fresh fruit and vegetables are scarce. I have been told by several residents, including the mother of a teenage girl, that after a period of time they have found the repetitive diet so unpalatable that they are only eating bread and yoghurt.
This morning, along with other south London MPs, I met a number of food banks serving communities in south London, which are frequently contacted by residents seeking support with food for asylum seekers living in hotels. They told us that the food provided in hotels is similarly dire, yet the food banks are operating with a lack of clarity, frequently being turned away by hotels and receiving conflicting advice about whether or not they can provide support to asylum seekers living in hotels.
Asylum seekers at Barry House and in hotels often experience great difficulty in accessing items that are essential for basic human dignity, such as shoes, underwear and toiletries. NHS staff working in Barry House tell me that they come across newly arrived asylum seekers who have crossed the channel wearing only the clothes they stand up in and having lost their shoes in transit, yet the welcome packs provided under the Home Office contract contain no underwear and there is no provision for shoes to be made available.
When I have made inquiries about these problems, the Government point to section 98 support as the answer, but asylum seekers can wait weeks for section 98 support and to be issued with an ASPEN—asylum support enablement—card. Research by Refugee Action in 2018 found that some people wait more than 100 days. This system is simply not fit for purpose as a means to provide such essential items when there is an immediate need.
At the root of these problems is the Government’s failed asylum system. The Government have failed to provide safe and legal routes and have no plan to address the backlog in decision making. The system traps people in limbo. It is a shocking and disgraceful waste. I have met residents in Barry House who are teachers, plumbers, electricians, chefs—people whose skills our community and economy desperately need.
I worry all the time about a teenager who wants to become an architect. She has been in Barry House for more than two years. She is only able to access basic English lessons at college, although her English is good. Her hopes and dreams are being crushed every day that she spends still in limbo, still waiting for the Home Office to take care of her family. Every time I see her, she is visibly more demoralised.
While these vulnerable people wait, the Government’s wider deportation policy is having a terrible impact on their mental health. I have heard from a number of organisations supporting asylum seekers in my constituency about the increasing number of people they encounter who are on suicide watch in their accommodation because  of the fear of being deported to Rwanda. Desperate people are coming to seek sanctuary in our country, yet our Government trap them in limbo, fail to provide for even the most basic of needs and further damage their mental health.
Therefore, I ask the Minister today whether he will take a personal interest in the plight of my constituents living at Barry House and in hotels in the surrounding area. Will he seek to establish for the content of welcome packs and the food provided proper standards which are scrutinised and enforced so that everyone seeking asylum in the UK is treated with basic dignity and respect? Can he provide clarity on whether hotels should be accepting deliveries from food banks where help is requested from the wider community? Will he set out when the Government expect to clear the backlog in asylum applications to reduce the length of time people are waiting in initial accommodation? Will he provide better support to local authorities who have large numbers of asylum seekers living in hotels to enable them to respond to the needs of vulnerable people in their area? Does he recognise the concerns that are being raised about the mental health and wellbeing of those living in initial accommodation with regard to the Government’s deportation policy, and what action is he taking in response?
The conversations I have with asylum seekers living in Barry House in my constituency leave me humbled by the experiences they have endured and their desire to settle, rebuild their lives and contribute to our community, and deeply ashamed of the way they are being treated by the Government. Our country can do so much better by those who come here seeking sanctuary in fear for their lives.

Kevin Foster: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate. The United Kingdom has a long and proud history of helping the world’s most vulnerable and desperate people to seek safety and sanctuary here, as we have seen most recently through the schemes we launched in response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, with over 155,000 visas now having been issued to those arriving under those schemes.
We recognise we have a duty to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. As part of that, we provide support and accommodation until an individual’s claim is fully determined. Local authorities play a very important role in providing that support, including the London Borough of Southwark. My officials, and those at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, therefore work closely with local authority partners on this and a range of topics, and we are genuinely grateful for their support—in the case of Southwark over many years, including as a dispersal area.
I have previously said to the House that our asylum system is broken. That is felt most keenly in the accommodation space. The aftermath of the pandemic, combined with the unprecedented and unacceptable rise in dangerous small boat crossings, has increased demand for support. That has had a cumulative impact on the overall asylum estate. One critical impact is on the increased requirement for dispersal accommodation.  We are procuring dispersal accommodation as quickly as possible, but we accept that some people are remaining in initial accommodation, such as Barry House, for a longer period than we would wish or would have expected. We have also, as was touched on, had to procure hotels. Published data as of March 2022 shows an increase in demand for asylum support of about 50% since the start of the pandemic, with accommodation now required for more than 80,000 asylum seekers while their claims are considered. That is unacceptable. For the individuals concerned it is not the best outcome, for taxpayers it is not the best outcome, and it is not the best outcome for local communities either. That is why we are committed to fixing it.
First, I will highlight the move to full dispersal. I announced in April that the Home Office would immediately move to a nationwide full dispersal model, so that asylum pressures are more equally spread across all local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, as the hon. Lady might be aware. A large number of local authorities, unlike hers, were not participating in providing dispersal accommodation, limiting our options. I used to mention the oft-quoted figure that 31 out of 32 local authority areas in Scotland were not participating, so we are moving to all local authorities—all areas—being part of the system.
We have begun procuring asylum accommodation in co-operation with local authorities in areas that have not participated before. That will help us to move from contingency accommodation, such as hotels, to less expensive but, crucially, more suitable accommodation, particularly for families. This will also see our initial accommodation estate return to being the short-stay solution that it was always designed to be, rather than being used for longer-term accommodation, to which the hon. Lady referred. We do not want that, which is why we are moving to implement full dispersal.
To deliver the new change, we are working in partnership with local authorities to develop regional plans. Between 9 May and 1 July, we held an informal consultation with local authorities and other interested parties to help to shape the design of a reformed asylum dispersal system that is fair, sustainable, innovative and responsive to changing demands and needs, and which, crucially, covers all immigration demands in a local authority area. The focus today is on asylum accommodation but we are conscious—local authorities make this point—that such things as accommodation for Afghans arriving under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, or who had arrived under Op Pitting, resettlement routes and asylum have traditionally been dealt with separately, and it makes sense to bring them together, particularly in areas such as Southwark, which has regularly played its part following requests that we have made.
Full dispersal will provide local authorities with more control and autonomy at a regional level by asking them to collectively agree an approach to dispersal in their region. We are in the process of analysing the evidence gathered through the informal consultation and I look forward to working with local authorities in the coming months following their contribution to this process. We are keen to work with them to agree how this will work and how we fairly allocate the level of accommodation that there should be in local communities, while being clear that full dispersal means that there is not an option for a local authority to walk out of the  door and decide not to take part. To be fair, London authorities have worked together in this area for many years and we want to try to move that model to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Part of this is about funding, which the hon. Lady touched on. The full dispersal system will be funded by a model designed to recognise the contribution of areas that have had a long-standing track record of supporting this work, while encouraging the provision of new dispersal accommodation in both new and existing areas where dispersal is applied. Each local authority in England, Scotland and Wales that was accommodating asylum seekers under dispersal on 27 March this year will receive a £250 one-off payment per asylum seeker accommodated in their local area. To date, we have paid 101 local authorities about £14 million to implement and/or bolster services in new and existing areas.
Encouraging the use of new accommodation is part of that. Funding will be available up to 31 March next year to provide £3,500 to the local council for each new dispersal bed space occupied in new and existing dispersal areas, further alleviating pressures on the system. That funding is not ringfenced, which will allow flexibility in its use, recognising the different priorities that local communities may have about how to spend it.
To implement the full dispersal model, we are undertaking a new burdens assessment as part of the informal consultation process. That will provide an opportunity to better understand the costs associated with asylum dispersal and engage with the local government sector. I hope that gives the hon. Lady reassurance that we are looking to move away from a dependency on contingency accommodation.
Despite the challenges, we have consistently met our statutory obligations towards destitute asylum seekers. We expect clear standards from our service providers and monitor them closely to ensure that they meet those standards. When essential living needs are not provided for in hotels, a cash allowance is provided. Extra assistance is provided for those who can show that they have exceptional needs. Additional support is also available for special cases; for example, further top-ups are available for families with pregnant mothers or very young children.
All asylum seekers have access, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to the advice, issue reporting and eligibility service provided by Migrant Help, where they can raise any concerns regarding accommodation or support services and get information about how to obtain further support.
Turning to the specific subject of the debate, I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting the issues with the Barry House site, as she did in late 2018 during a Westminster Hall debate. There have been important developments since that debate. In September 2019, the Home Office started working with our contractor, Clearsprings Ready Homes, in London and the south. That has enabled significant improvements to service delivery, accommodation provision and collaboration with local partners.
We believe that Barry House has been improved and offers a good standard of accommodation and support. It has kitchen facilities on each floor, a spacious dining room, communal spaces, and dedicated areas of privacy for breastfeeding mothers and multi-faith worship. Bedrooms also offer wet rooms and wheelchair access throughout. I heard the concerns that the hon. Lady  raised, and we will of course look into them. I am happy to meet her separately, with the Home Office team, to go through them in a little more detail, particularly if there are points about individual cases that she did not want to share in a public forum. We take our responsibilities in this area seriously.
I hope the hon. Lady will have noted that some of the times of stay are not times that we are looking to be the standard but reflect the pressures in the system. Those pressures are motivating our move to things such as full dispersal. We will continue to have a close and collaborative relationship between Home Office officials and senior officials in Southwark. Again, we are grateful for the local council’s support.
On some of the wider points that were raised, we are recruiting more asylum decision makers. Traditionally, there have been about 400 to 500. We are rapidly approaching having 1,000 in post—obviously, there is a process of training and mentoring to go through—and we will look to go beyond that, because we are conscious that we need to get the number of people waiting down. As I have said at the Home Affairs Committee, too many people are waiting too long for a decision. That is not in their interests, it is not in the interests of the immigration system and, ultimately, it is not in the taxpayer’s interests. That is why we are bringing in more  people and more resources, and looking at how we can make our teams more productive, learning from other European systems that are able to process decisions more quickly, partly through investment in digital transformation.
Let me conclude by expressing my gratitude to the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. I am grateful to all in her community for the support that they provide to those who are accommodated among them while waiting for a decision on their asylum claim. We are reforming the asylum system to make it fairer and more effective. I suspect that the hon. Lady and I disagree about some of the moves we are making to do that, but there is no doubt that an overhaul is needed, not least to put an end to some of the lengthy delays people face while waiting for determination of their asylum claim, and to reduce the time people spend in accommodation that was only designed for them to spend a short period in before moving on to dispersed accommodation. We are committed to making this happen, and we remain committed, as ever, to meeting our statutory duties to support those who would otherwise be destitute and delivering the decisions they require in a timely way.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.